Defending a religious person...

[Verv]

I have been studying Buddhism in the Korean & Indian traditions for the last few years. It is a part of my major emphasis in studying.

Saying that Buddhism is non-theistic can be misleading.

The desire that Western 'atheists' have to usurp the Buddhist tradition is incorrect and often sickening. None of Buddhism registers or makes sense without the concept of Samsara -- the continuous cycle of rebirth and suffering.

If our life is just a one off event and not a permanent recurrence then we will face a situation where practicing the stringent morality embraced in Theraveda & Mahayana Buddhism makes zero sense.

Certainly it is not theistic along the lines of a Western tradition but to somehow say that it would make sense to an atheist is... an insult to that atheist? For believing in the 'non-scientific?'

If you want to look cool and like an enlightened person dabbling in Eastern thought I would say just go for Confucianism. It has a lot less of the religiosity of Buddhism -- however, since it has an inherently duty-bound, honor based and conservative feel to it I doubt that it will win much support except from those atheists with extreme intellectual integrity.

 

[variant]

Certainly it is not theistic along the lines of a Western tradition but to somehow say that it would make sense to an atheist is... an insult to that atheist? For believing in the 'non-scientific?'

Atheism is just the absence of belief in God's, it doesn't necessarily imply scientific rationalism or skepticism.

It would be wrong to say all atheists are of the western scientific skeptical variety.

Of course, Buddhists are unlikely to define themselves under the broad term, and some have theistic beliefs depending on the tradition.

 

[Verv]

Atheism is just the absence of belief in God's, it doesn't necessarily imply scientific rationalism or skepticism.

It would be wrong to say all atheists are of the western scientific skeptical variety.

Of course, Buddhists are unlikely to define themselves under the broad term, and some have theistic beliefs depending on the tradition.

You did not address the actual bulk of this.

Even Buddhists who do not acknowledge godhead acknowledge the idea of Samsara or they are extreme fringe Buddhists. Samsara is a belief that would make little to no sense to have as any sort of orthodox 'atheist.'

In fact, if one believed in Samsara and still considered themselves an atheist they would be endlessly criticized by atheists as being fundamentally illogical. There is no proof of Samsara and the concept of one's soul being recycled would seem quite laughable to a person who dismisses the idea of God.

That is the point that you have to address -- that the Buddhism that gets some tertiary admiration from atheist, humanist liberals is still fundamentally anti-atheist.

 

[variant]

You did not address the actual bulk of this.

Even Buddhists who do not acknowledge godhead acknowledge the idea of Samsara or they are extreme fringe Buddhists. Samsara is a belief that would make little to no sense to have as any sort of orthodox 'atheist.'

In fact, if one believed in Samsara and still considered themselves an atheist they would be endlessly criticized by atheists as being fundamentally illogical. There is no proof of Samsara and the concept of one's soul being recycled would seem quite laughable to a person who dismisses the idea of God.

That is the point that you have to address -- that the Buddhism that gets some tertiary admiration from atheist, humanist liberals is still fundamentally anti-atheist.

Samsara isn't a God.

There is no such thing as an orthodox atheist.

I would indeed criticize the idea, but then again I am not a Buddhist, but this doesn't make them theists.

It's a binary state, either you believe in Gods or you don't.

 

[Catherineanne]

Well I suggest that the bible says and Christianity generally says that faith in the bible is needed. I don't need it. I do have faith in God. whoever that is.

That is most excellent, and means that you are more than half way home.

Very often, in my experience, it is not actually God himself that people reject, but an inadequate expression of who God is.

All that any of us need to do (if you don't mind a bit of advice!!) is to ensure that the God we believe in is worth having. Clearly, some concepts of the deity as described in the OT are way off the mark, but the prophets say that themselves; they tell Israel over and over that they have missed the point in a big way. In the end Christ himself comes and shows us without a shadow of a doubt what God is really like.

I like the writings of Isaac of Syria on this matter. You might care to check them out, if you get a spare moment. He describes the kind of God I would really, really like to know, and in fact the only one I do know. God as revealed in Christ; pure love all the way through and motivated always by love.



http://glory2godforallthings.com/2006/11/01/words-from-st-isaac-of-syria/

 

[Catherineanne]

You need an official cite for it?

No, not really. I am just trying to say that life is too short, and there are far too many ignorant people out there to take offence at all of them; we are outnumbered.

Better to ignore them, and choose the company you keep with care.

It does make a difference.

Indeed so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Saying that Buddhism is non-theistic can be misleading.

Agreed. Precisely what are the devas in Buddhism? They are at least god-like.

The desire that Western 'atheists' have to usurp the Buddhist tradition is incorrect and often sickening. None of Buddhism registers or makes sense without the concept of Samsara -- the continuous cycle of rebirth and suffering.

Rebirth is consistent with atheism, even if skeptical atheists aren't inclined to believe in rebirth. Buddhism could still be atheistic if this is the only challenge.

If our life is just a one off event and not a permanent recurrence then we will face a situation where practicing the stringent morality embraced in Theraveda & Mahayana Buddhism makes zero sense.

True, but there are other concepts, such as the rejection of a permanent, indestructable soul, that is not only consistent with atheism, it's an idea that can be embraced by skeptical atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Verv]

But... Buddhism believes in reincarnation at its most basic.

There is the idea that perhaps souls can be destroyed in some concepts of what Nirvana is but this is not even a very mainstream idea. However, Buddhism is not as rigorous as defining its theology, by and large, in extremely set terms...

I just wonder:

- Atheists do not accept Christianity and general 'theism' for believing in the concept of God with no proof and believing it somehow illogical...
- Why would atheists accept Buddhism with its concept like Samsara and the fact that the most basic texts do reference supernatural events?

And, as stated: a lot of the ethical precepts would not even make sense without the concept.

There is this double standard where atheists are quick to dismiss something that closely resembles Christianity (as we are talking about atheism as a movement being primarily a Western phenomena) but have this lingering desire to give other groups a pass.

Grass is greener, right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why would atheists accept Buddhism with its concept like Samsara and the fact that the most basic texts do reference supernatural events?

I don't think that those atheists by any means accept all of Buddhism. They do not generally accept the idea of rebirth. Rather, they accept certain philosophical insights within Buddhism, and see Buddhism as one of the most peaceful and philosophical of religions.

I don't know if you are familiar with how Buddhism is presented in the West. That presentation tends to be almost exclusively philosophical, with "supernatural events" removed almost completely from the discussion. It is basically whitewashed to make it more acceptable to a Western audience.

I don't know how that started. Probably with Japanese Zen filtering into America.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ebia]

I don't think that those atheists by any means accept all of Buddhism. They do not generally accept the idea of rebirth. Rather, they accept certain philosophical insights within Buddhism, and see Buddhism as one of the most peaceful and philosophical of religions.

I don't know if you are familiar with how Buddhism is presented in the West. That presentation tends to be almost exclusively philosophical, with "supernatural events" removed almost completely from the discussion.

With such things as Buddhist instigated violence in such places as Sri Lanka also whitewashed out

 

[seeking Christ]

To be a Christian is to say to me that you think I deserve to go to hell for disagreeing with your metaphysics.

No, its not. Nothing could be further removed from the Gospel.

 

[variant]

- Atheists do not accept Christianity and general 'theism' for believing in the concept of God with no proof and believing it somehow illogical...
- Why would atheists accept Buddhism with its concept like Samsara and the fact that the most basic texts do reference supernatural events?

People such as me don't accept the concepts, but that doesn't make the Buddhists that don't believe in Gods theists.

There is this double standard where atheists are quick to dismiss something that closely resembles Christianity (as we are talking about atheism as a movement being primarily a Western phenomena) but have this lingering desire to give other groups a pass.

Grass is greener, right?

I'm not giving anyone a pass, I am saying that some people are atheists and others are not, and the only difference between those two groups is whether or not they believe in Gods.

 

[variant]

No, its not. Nothing could be further removed from the Gospel.

I don't care about your selectively authoritative views on the gospel when you won't even answer the most basic direct question.

You don't get to criticize my views if you won't present your own honestly.

 

[seeking Christ]

I don't care about your selectively authoritative views on the gospel when you won't even answer the most basic direct question.

You don't get to criticize my views if you won't present your own honestly.

Translation:



lalala I can't hear you

OR

you could read the answer for what it is, an answer; heartfelt, and complete. In the meantime, this really isn't about me at all. You've never listened to the Gospel, either. At least you couldn't have rejected it.

 

[variant]

Translation:



lalala I can't hear you

OR

you could read the answer for what it is, an answer; heartfelt, and complete. In the meantime, this really isn't about me at all. You've never listened to the Gospel, either. At least you couldn't have rejected it.

You seem to be an expert in my beliefs, and you cop out when asked a question about yours.

Criticize me all you like. You keep saying I am wrong and you don't even bother to explain why, because, of course that would expect you to answer the question I asked you.

I suppose you are only comfortable sitting in judgment over me selectively too.

So, what happens to me based upon your religion if I lack faith?

Go ahead, take another swing at it you fraud.

Try and answer it this time.

 

[seeking Christ]

You seem to be an expert in my beliefs, and you cop out when asked a question about yours.

What makes you say that? I pointed out a truism, that God gives every man a measure of faith, and you get all huffy and assume it must mean XYZ, which I never stated.

I also answered truthfully when you asked about my beliefs. It obviously wasn't what you expected, nor do you have any way to process that while maintaining some very obvious prejudices. None of that is my fault.

 

[variant]

What makes you say that? I pointed out a truism, that God gives every man a measure of faith, and you get all huffy and assume it must mean XYZ, which I never stated.

Because you say I have faith because your religious views say I do, except there not religious views at all somehow.

You say you can not or wish to not judge me except you claim to know my heart better than I do.

Your beliefs are your opinions, if you think they are true they are your assertions.

You can't hide behind your idea of God with me when you feel it is convenient you have to defend why you think things to me if you are going to make assertions to me.

I find it insulting dishonest and manipulative to do otherwise.

I also answered truthfully when you asked about my beliefs. It obviously wasn't what you expected, nor do you have any way to process that while maintaining some very obvious prejudices. None of that is my fault.

No, you assume an air of authority on some subjects and not on others when it suits you. It has nothing to do with honesty it has to do with you not standing up and staying what you believe to be true when you are uncomfortable with the idea. You are an example of a person hiding behind the idea of God when it suits you speaking authoritatively for him when it suits you.

Maybe this IS the honest you, a coward who takes a condescending tone to others who would question you.

 

[seeking Christ]

Because you say I have faith because your religious views say I do

Should we count how many mistakes there are just in this little snippet?

I never said you have faith. I said God gives every man a measure of faith. How do I know how you fall into that? Perhaps it has not happened with you yet. I have no idea. You would do better not attempting to state the views of others, it leads to all sorts of problems.

, except there not religious views at all somehow.

Not only in your definition cited, but also in normal usage, religion connotates repetitive rituals. I have none. (As far as views go, you see how you have made a mess attempting to state mine for me so lets not go there)

You say you can not or wish to not judge me except you claim to know my heart better than I do.

Now you will need to demonstrate where or how I have done any such thing. (At least we know why you got all huffy.)

Your beliefs are your opinions, if you think they are true they are your assertions.

How is this not a tautology? And then why do you feel you have the right to declare my views for me?

You can't hide behind your idea of God with me when you feel it is convenient you have to defend why you think things to me if you are going to make assertions to me.

Yet you continually state "my" idea of God to me - wholly opposed to anything I actually adhere to. Do you see how this can be problematic?

No, you assume an air of authority on some subjects and not on others when it suits you. It has nothing to do with honesty it has to do with you not standing up and staying what you believe to be true

*ahem*

Quite the logical contradiction you have going there. First of all, I have no qualms about stating what I know to be true. There are no shortage of people on this website that will attest to that

Second, if I couldn't do that how could I "assume an air of authority?" [Insert relevant Cartmann clip here ]

You may accuse me of one or the other I suppose, but here you have done both which is a logical impossibility.

Oh, and I refuse to make stuff up. This bothers you why, exactly?

Also, this whole "assume air" thing; this is the innerwebz, no air is exchanged between us. That's all in your own perception. Own it.

 

[variant]

Should we count how many mistakes there are just in this little snippet?

I never said you have faith. I said God gives every man a measure of faith.
How do I know how you fall into that? Perhaps it has not happened with you yet. I have no idea. You would do better not attempting to state the views of others, it leads to all sorts of problems.

Well I don't have it, whether or not you want to assert that I will or should have it or have had it, so answer the question.

What do I get for my fervent disagreement with your metaphysics and my lack of faith in God's existence? What does anyone get? What does your religion teach.

Not only in your definition cited, but also in normal usage, religion connotates repetitive rituals. I have none. (As far as views go, you see how you have made a mess attempting to state mine for me so lets not go there)

That would be a no true Scotsman fallacy. The definition says "usually".

For reference:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

You are religious. Your statement about God giving a measure of faith to everyone is a religious one. Your appearance in this thread is to defend your religious ideas. You believe in super human agents. You have such a set of beliefs.

Go ahead and deny it some more.

Now you will need to demonstrate where or how I have done any such thing. (At least we know why you got all huffy.)

I got angry because you continually dodge a basic question.

How is this not a tautology? And then why do you feel you have the right to declare my views for me?

I haven't, I just say your views are your views.

Yet you continually state "my" idea of God to me - wholly opposed to anything I actually adhere to. Do you see how this can be problematic?

*ahem*

Quite the logical contradiction you have going there. First of all, I have no qualms about stating what I know to be true. There are no shortage of people on this website that will attest to that

Second, if I couldn't do that how could I "assume an air of authority?" [Insert relevant Cartmann clip here ]

By pretending that you can speak authoritatively for god sometimes and at other times say you can not.

You may accuse me of one or the other I suppose, but here you have done both which is a logical impossibility.

This one is a head scratcher.

You are quite free to contradict yourself, especially in tone, it is certainly not impossible.

 

[seeking Christ]

Well I don't have it, whether or not you want to assert that I will or should have it or have had it, so answer the question.

What do I get for my fervent disagreement with your metaphysics and my lack of faith in God's existence? What does anyone get? What does your religion teach.

You act as if you are accused of "having faith?" Rest easy there. (Not me, I don't have it) I will ask you to be introspective as to why this reaction took place, and if you can to tell me how I triggered it. PM might be the better venue for such details, but it was not in the actual content of my posting.

What do I get for my fervent disagreement with your metaphysics and my lack of faith in God's existence? What does anyone get? What does your religion teach.

Are you intentionally being provocative? I have told you plainly I don't consider myself to have any religion, so it should be obvious to you that I don't follow religious teaching. Repetitive ritual, especially done for the sake of ritual, is the antithesis of anything and everything Jesus had to say. In my own observations, the first thing religion does is to mess that all up. And what I see in Scripture is the constant warning to stay clear of all that.

Next up, "metaphysics" is not what the Gospel is about, neither is it in any way related to what Jesus means when He says "believe," or "those who believe," or anything similar.

Further, when you use the word "God" what do you really refer to? Is it not defined by all sorts of religion? If we could somehow lay this on the table, you might find that I reject the same things you do. Or at least a lot of it.

Now I ask you to notice how much difficulty this has caused, and to realize there surely isn't enough common ground here to be able to speak deep truths in any meaningful fashion, such as you appear to wish. Instead, why not go back to my original answer to your question and actually read it, and take it at face value, and see if you don't come away with a completely different
understanding than what you've been operating under?

Try actually discussing it, instead of just knee-jerk reaction this time?

That would be a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I don't see how, but I'm not sure its all that important to our discussion here.

You are religious. Your statement about God giving a measure of faith to everyone is a religious one. Your appearance in this thread is to defend your religious ideas.

Ok, you have the right to call me religious. Which means that I also have the right to say, for instance, that you are a Catholic that should be boiled alive in oil, or a Calvinist who should be burned at the stake, or anything else I can imagine now matter how preposterous. The valid question is, is that a good idea?

Or maybe I should take you at your word that you are an atheist, and you should also take me at my word that I am not religious.

You believe in super human agents. You have such a set of beliefs.

Go ahead and deny it some more.

I really wouldn't say any such thing. I know of a spiritual realm, because I have interacted with it, many times, and many ways. This is not "a belief," nor mere talk. I wouldn't consider God to be a "super human agent," nor do I believe I can convey to you how I perceive His essence. The most reliable way is via the Bible, but you clearly have a set of lenses that fog over as soon as you recognize anything from there, and you complete the picture in your own mind in something approaching the worst way possible before any details can be filled in. This is called "closure," and I hope you can try to keep that at bay?

I got angry because you continually dodge a basic question.

And yet I haven't. You might not like the answer, but your own words said I claim to "know what's in your heart better than you do," or something to that effect. Be honest and admit that's at least part of what set you off. And again I point out I said no such thing, because I think no such thing. To be sure, God could reveal to me things about your own heart that not even you know - but He hasn't. And I really don't see any reason why He would.

I haven't, I just say your views are your views.

Well I respect that as your intent. When you miss the mark of that intent I will continue to call you on it; fair?

By pretending that you can speak authoritatively for god sometimes and at other times say you can not.

To be clear, I NEVER "speak for God." If there is something I know that I feel is relevant I will interject it, but this by no means concludes omniscience on my part. I'm kinda surprised I need to clarify this?