Hell

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

Gadarene said:
Atheists tend to conclude what they do about the mindset of some believers after conducting an argument on a religious topic.

So it is reasonable to conclude atheists establish their rejection of God based on rejecting the arguments offered by Christians.

andy b · May 10, 2014

OrdinaryClay said:
So it is reasonable to conclude atheists establish their rejection of God based on rejecting the arguments offered by Christians.

i wouldn't have thought a particular religion would come into it

Huntun · May 10, 2014

So it is reasonable to conclude atheists establish their rejection of God based on rejecting the arguments offered by Christians.

By rejection of God do you mean our lack of belief in the existence of gods ? The reasons probably vary between individual atheists and non-theists. Some might find the very idea of "god" meaningless or incoherent. Some might not have found, or been presented with, any (or at least sufficient) evidence that would lead them to embrace a belief in a Gods existence. For some the existence of a God might contradict the teachings of their religion (some atheists do actually have religions) or the philosophical world view they have been convinced of . Some might even have strong emotional hang ups or not want to "have a God over them" like certain Christian apologists often imply as the motivation for all us when it really isn't.

Technically you don't need reasons to lack belief though. It's beliefs that require reasons. It's normal to lack belief in Gods until you have been exposed to the concept of a God and then convinced of ones existence. Lack of convincing would lead to continue lack of belief.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

Huntun said:
Technically you don't need reasons to lack belief though. It's beliefs that require reasons. It's normal to lack belief in Gods until you have been exposed to the concept of a God and then convinced of ones existence. Lack of convincing would lead to continue lack of belief.

The evidence suggests otherwise. All societies old and new hold to a belief in the spiritual world and deities of some sort. Buddhism for example is rife with the belief in deities and spirits, and prior to that was all forms of ancestor worship.

A more reasoned conclusion would be that our default position is one of theism of some sort.

Chany · May 10, 2014

OrdinaryClay said:
The evidence suggests otherwise. All societies old and new hold to a belief in the spiritual world and deities of some sort. Buddhism for example is rife with the belief in deities and spirits, and prior to that was all forms of ancestor worship.

A more reasoned conclusion would be that our default position is one of theism of some sort.

First, theism is a specific claim. The Greek Pantheon is not theistic in any sense, but paganistic. The belief in the metaphysical is not the same as the belief in the supernatural

Second, Buddhism, if I remember correctly, has some variation in it, just like Christianity. Some Buddhists really drive home the fact that they do not believe in deities. They emphasize that Buddha was a mere human who reached enlightenment through no supernatural aid and his own power.

Third, popularity does not shift the burden of proof. If 95 percent of people believe someone is guilty of murder, it doesn't really matter in the courtroom. The prosecution still must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same with God. I don't have to disprove something for which there is no valid proof for in the first place. The first move and the burden of proof is on the theist making the particular god claim, no one else.

Huntun · May 10, 2014

The evidence suggests otherwise. All societies old and new hold to a belief in the spiritual world and deities of some sort.Buddhism for example is rife with the belief in deities and spirits , and prior to that was all forms of ancestor worship.

A more reasoned conclusion would be that our default position is one of theism of some sort.

Beliefs are learned or developed. You wouldn't suggest that a new born pre-verbal infant has the belief "there is this type of all powerful supreme being called a God and this Being actually exists in the real world." He/she wouldn't even have the words or concepts to formulate it. Recent research has shown that infants don't even distinguish themselves from their environment. They are not self aware. I don't see how a belief like that would even be possible when I take these things into account. The fact that numerous people come to develop, or were acculturated into, a similar belief doesn't change that fact.

A belief in a "spirit world", or ancestors, or finite beings labeled "devas", isn't the exact same thing as positing an all powerful , supreme creator God too. The small "g" god term is so broad I could apply the term to myself. Why lump them all together into the same thing ?

Most of humanity probably believed the earth was flat but such a belief wasn't a "default" belief they were "born with" that didn't require convincing. The fact that they didn't fall off and that it didn't look round when you are standing on it convinced them it was flat.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

Chany said:
First, theism is a specific claim. The Greek Pantheon is not theistic in any sense, but paganistic. The belief in the metaphysical is not the same as the belief in the supernatural

Theism is the belief in deities. A deity is any belief in a spiritual entity that attracts human worship. Paganism is a qualified form of theism. IOW, pagans are a subset of theists.

Second, Buddhism, if I remember correctly, has some variation in it, just like Christianity. Some Buddhists really drive home the fact that they do not believe in deities. They emphasize that Buddha was a mere human who reached enlightenment through no supernatural aid and his own power.

Just because there are a subculture of westerners who have created a syncretic form of faux "buddhism" does nothign to diminish my point. Theism is in all societies and across all of history. Therefore, it is a far more logical position to conclude that we are innately theistic rather than not.

PsychoSarah · May 10, 2014

OrdinaryClay said:
Theism is the belief in deities. A deity is any belief in a spiritual entity that attracts human worship. Paganism is a qualified form of theism. IOW, pagans are a subset of theists.

Just because there are a subculture of westerners who have created a syncretic form of faux "buddhism" does nothign to diminish my point. Theism is in all societies and across all of history. Therefore, it is a far more logical position to conclude that we are innately theistic rather than not.

Pagan is basically a word people had for people who believed in different gods than their own.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

Huntun said:
Beliefs are learned or developed.

So is language, but science declares with great confidence that language is innate as is our theism.

A belief in a "spirit world", or ancestors, or finite beings labeled "devas", isn't the exact same thing as positing an all powerful , supreme creator God too. The small "g" god term is so broad I could apply the term to myself. Why lump them all together into the same thing ?

I'm Christian so obviously I don't lump them together. To dispel the bogus myth that atheism is the human default position one simply needs to acknowledge their historical and universal belief.

The gross polytheism of world wide Buddhism speaks for itself. People are drawn to theism like a moth to a flame.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Pagan is basically a word people had for people who believed in different gods than their own.

Yes, I agree, but the discussion is not about etymology. It's about semantics. These pagans were theists.

Gadarene · May 10, 2014

Western Buddhism is hardly syncretic. First day in my intro class (not led by a western hippy, rather, a Thai monk) said that you are not required to accept everything claimed to be Buddhism in order to be Buddhist.

Having to believe the entirety of a canonical text, I'll leave that schtick to Christians, thanks.

Gadarene · May 10, 2014

PsychoSarah · May 10, 2014

OrdinaryClay said:
Yes, I agree, but the discussion is not about etymology. It's about semantics. These pagans were theists.

I think by definition atheists can't be pagans though, since we don't worship any gods.

Huntun · May 10, 2014

The gross polytheism of world wide Buddhism speaks for itself. People are drawn to theism like a moth to a flame.

Some Buddhists give honors to devas while others reject the practice. The Jodo Shinshu (biggest school in Japan) prohibits the worship of devas (or Kami ) whereas other schools honor devas in hopes that they will do things like defend the nation and whatnot. Some Buddhists believe that "deva" symbolically represents a certain human life state, others might view them as archetypes or seed forms of/in the collective unconscious (alaya-vijnana) or as completely natural alien intelligences more like ET's than supernatural beings , others go so far as to say that their inclusion in the Sutras was just a condescension to popular religion. A skillful expedient.

So is language, but science declares with great confidence that language is innate as is our theism.

I would agree that our ability to develop or hold to beliefs is innate and that belief in God is one specific belief that gets developed in a high percentage of people. A person who lacks convincing evidence that one exists will continue to refrain from believing however. Millions of people never develop said belief. Others might develop the belief but later come to realize that it was totally unfounded and then ditch it as well. Calling it a "default position" just sounds like a way to try to shift the burden of proof.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

Gadarene said:
Western Buddhism is hardly syncretic. First day in my intro class (not led by a western hippy, rather, a Thai monk) said that you are not required to accept everything claimed to be Buddhism in order to be Buddhist.

There is nothing that requires syncretic Buddhism to be taught by "hippies." In fact syncretism is always more convincing when taught by a "native". Then people believe it's not syncretic. It's more comforting to those who wish to lie to themselves.

It's best to look at the actions of the throngs who have been practicing it for millennium. Actions scream much louder than a college lecturer.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
I think by definition atheists can't be pagans though, since we don't worship any gods.

I agree.

PsychoSarah · May 10, 2014

OrdinaryClay said:
There is nothing that requires syncretic Buddhism to be taught by "hippies." In fact syncretism is always more convincing when taught by a "native". Then people believe it's not syncretic. It's more comforting to those who wish to lie to themselves.

It's best to look at the actions of the throngs who have been practicing it for millennium. Actions scream much louder than a college lecturer.

pretty sure plenty people treat Christianity in a similar fashion also. I don't think I know anyone who follows the literal word of the bible and applies it to their life exactly.

Huntun · May 10, 2014

Actually it was the Buddha who taught that you shouldn't be required to accept things on authority or just because they are taught to be "Buddhist". Doesn't take syncretism for that idea to appear in Buddhism:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

- Kalama Sutta

Not that there is anything wrong with syncretism though. It would be silly to close yourself off to theories and ideas just because they happen to come from outside your favorite sect.

OrdinaryClay · May 10, 2014

Huntun said:
Some Buddhists give honors to devas while others reject the practice. The Jodo Shinshu (biggest school in Japan) prohibits the worship of devas (or Kami ) whereas other schools honor devas in hopes that they will do things like defend the nation and whatnot. Some Buddhists believe that "deva" symbolically represents a certain human life state, others might view them as archetypes or seed forms of/in the collective unconscious (alaya-vijnana) or as completely natural alien intelligences more like ET's than supernatural beings , others go so far as to say that their inclusion in the Sutras was just a condescension to popular religion. A skillful expedient.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=buddhist deities

Clearly the countless prayer flag displays I see around me are far more than decorations. Thye mean something very serious to the people I talk to. There's a reason they hang until shredded.

Calling it a "default position" just sounds like a way to try to shift the burden of proof.

This must be why atheists insist on defining the "default position".

Gadarene · May 10, 2014

OrdinaryClay said:
There is nothing that requires syncretic Buddhism to be taught by "hippies." In fact syncretism is always more convincing when taught by a "native". Then people believe it's not syncretic. It's more comforting to those who wish to lie to themselves. It's best to look at the actions of the throngs who have been practicing it for millennium. Actions scream much louder than a college lecturer.

The actions of those who practice it - including the monks who teach exactly what I've just mentioned?

As already pointed out, some are theists, some aren't. You are cherry picking those that do and then blindly asserting that this means Buddhism is inherently theistic.

It's one thing when Christians play this silly game amongst themselves, but I really do have to laugh when they do it with other beliefs/stances that they think are baloney anyway. 'It's baloney - but it has a VERY precise meaning and if you disagree with what I say it is you're wrong'

Hell

Berean

Newbie

Ho Chih Zen

Berean

Uncertain Absurdist

Ho Chih Zen

Berean

Chaotic Neutral

Berean

Berean

-______-

-______-

Chaotic Neutral

Ho Chih Zen

Berean

Berean

Chaotic Neutral

Ho Chih Zen

Berean

-______-

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency