Buddhism is often described as an atheistic religion. — Tom Storm

Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.

Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss. The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana. In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence. Along with such spiritual aspirations, Buddhism encourages earnest endeavor to make this world a better place to live in. — Nyanoponika Therea, Buddhism and the God Idea

A disputant in search of an argument? — Wayfarer

Let's hope so for all our sakes.

Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion — Nyanoponika Therea, Buddhism and the God Idea

II was expecting this.

Just setting the record straight is all.

I'm sure the Buddha would appreciate it.

Let's hope so for all our sakes. — Tom Storm

*sigh*

II was expecting this. — Tom Storm

I am not bashing on Buddhism. In any sense, for me as an atheist, it's the only major religion close to any rationality in the world today.

But it is still a religion, with practices that can come in conflict with pure reason and rationality. Like, reincarnation, how do we combine that with atheism?



I'm trying to get some clarifications on the definitions people have, because I think there's no point in trying to argue about theism and atheism when people have muddy definitions in the first place.

If you want to mock me then go ahead, that would just clarify your level in this discussion.

Imho...

All these perspectives are rooted in faith, so any perceived difference is an illusion, or at least a substantial exaggeration. Faith is the human condition. There's no running from it.

Faith is the human condition for a simple reason. We want to know everything, we can't help it. And there's lots and lots of things we don't know, and many we probably can't know.

I'm not religious myself, only incurably philosophical. But, imho, generally speaking religion has a pretty realistic understanding of the human condition. The evidence for this is that religion has thrived in every time and place for a very long time. No perspective that was way out of touch with the realities of being human would have accomplished that.

Think of it this way. If religion was a creature, we would have to admit it's very well adapted to it's environment, the human mind.

The question posed by the debate was whether 3017 had a sustainable position. Did I not see to it that that question was answered? — Hanover

Obviously my lack of experience, but what does a draw even mean? Not upheld but not rejected?

Obviously my lack of experience, but what does a draw even mean? Not upheld but not rejected? — Kenosha Kid

It means a tie, like if the final score is 1 to 1.

It means a tie, like if the final score is 1 to 1. — Hanover

My question was what this means in the context of the debate. I know what it means in the context of soccer because that has an established scoring system. The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not.

The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not — Kenosha Kid

I guess in competitive debates like in high school, they actually judge them and declare winners. In other debates, like presidential ones, each side gets to argue they won. In this one, 3017 is arguing he got a draw, so I guess ask him how he scored it.

I guess in competitive debates like in high school, they actually judge them and declare winners. In other debates, like presidential ones, each side gets to argue they won. In this one, 3017 is arguing he got a draw, so I guess ask him how he scored it. — Hanover

I concede. I'm not mentally or emotionally prepared for asking 3017 anything today, I suspect it will end in my tears (rocking a hangover Hanover).

@3017amen @180 Proof:

To be quite honest, it's entirely pointless to try and score it by formal criteria because @3017amen did not stick to the agreed topic from their opening post and offered no on topic counterpoints even after 180 engaged the distorted topic.

Ideally if you want to have a formal debate, at least agree to the topic and a strict format beforehand and stick to it. If you are unable or unwilling to even try and do that don't waste our time by getting us to set up a formal debate.

#irrationally angry because I've not seen a long form 180proof post in years and wanted to see one again.

Perhaps, Hanover, as moderator, and in consideration of the debate to date, you might advise 3017 that if he does not participate by some time that you specify, you shall be forced to rule him as having withdrawn from the debate, and 180 the winner.

Hi all,
new member here!

So, I read the beginning and the end of this thread and it seems to me that (as norm) the "discussion" went south. :smile:
But I have a question to both believers in God and atheists - an answer to this I did not see nor find and which is the most important for both atheists and believers: God. Who is he: definition?

In short: a definition of who we are supposed to discuss about here?
Someone?

Anselm's "proof," — tim wood

I was thinking about this and found that it’s actually difficult to not imagine something greater than God, because for there to be something definable as God there must be some kind of delineation or boundary, so we’re always (infinitely) forced to imagine what’s beyond that boundary.

God. Who is he: definition?

In short: a definition of who we are supposed to discuss about here?
Someone? — Iris0

The proposition was that atheism is illogical, so it's any normal-use definition of a deity, not just a particular one. I personally define God as 180proof, which is how I'd have kicked his ass. I ain't listenin to anyone who says they don't exist.

I ain't listenin to anyone who says they don't exist. — Kenosha Kid

The first part of this the key to understanding theists. And not actually a fault, except as they either pretend to be listening or represent themselves as listening.

@baker gets it right. "A mistake people often make when trying to talk to religious people is assuming that what they are having or about to have is an actual conversation, a discussion, a dialogue. It's not.
— baker

I am just asking - because if no-one - not believers nor atheists who refute the same "undefined god" discuss a matter where no-one knows who or what we are actually talking about - what is the point?
I mean if a believer does not know who he/she believes in - and the atheist does not know either who or what they refute - what is going on?

My position is quite clear - if and when no-one knows or knows how to define who or what they are discussing they are all just fumbling in the dark... seems quite pointless to me!
So if there is a definition that atheists use - what is that definition?

I would honestly like to know...

I am just asking - because if no-one - not believers nor atheists who refute the same "undefined god" discuss a matter where no-one knows who or what we are actually talking about - what is the point?
I mean if a believer does not know who he/she believes in - and the atheist does not know either who or what they refute - what is going on? — Iris0

But that's already a good reason to reject the proposition: if it is too badly defined. Also, you don't need a complete description. I can reject the proposition that a magical man in the sky made the world and the stars and the animals and us by conscious design just based on what I know about the sky, the world, the stars, animals and us. I don't need to know the nature or extent or origin of the magic, or what sort of skyhouse the man lives in, or what his favourite colour is.

what do you call them who lack belief in any superstition, supernatural, ghosts, fortune-telling or whatever fantasy you can come up with? — Christoffer

A naturalist or physicalist or something in that ballpark.

My question was what this means in the context of the debate. I know what it means in the context of soccer because that has an established scoring system. The result of the debate seems like it should be binary: the proposition is supported, or it is not. — Kenosha Kid

I guess since nothing has yet been proposed, that nonexistent proposition can’t be either supported or not, which leaves a score of 0 to 0, as initially.

:smile:
aaa... so you reject a magic man in the sky? I guess that most of the serious believers do share your point of view...
But seriously - what or who is God?
Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject?
Or do they reject - as do most serious believers - a magic man on a cloud with a white long beard
:rofl:

hear hear

Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject? — Iris0

That he can be said to exist when he can't even be described. Things do exist. If God is one of those things, say an apple, then he does exist. But I don't believe that an apple created the universe.

So if there is a definition that atheists use - what is that definition? — Iris0

Mine: an atheist declines to accept on faith that which requires direct evidence to affirm. Which says zero about belief, but is towards those who would press their beliefs onto others as matter of fact.

okay - but ...
there are lots of things we do assume exist but cannot be defined nor describe completely - our consciences is one of these things - and we have several of those within theoretical physics - but you would not say they do not exist (take black holes - they are only recently "seen" or said to actually exist) - and within physics they keep on looking for them because they believed - so if an atheist does not look how are they going to find?

but for those who have had "personal God experiences" it seems they do have the notion that God is completely real - even if invisible to our eyes (we do not have excellent sight now do we :rofl: )--- but as an atheist has never had that sort of experience they refute that other have? That would be the same as if I who have never had a depression or angst would say: it does not exist even if humans say they experience that - it's all made up.

Plenty of serious believers will hear a naturalistic account of the Big Bang creating the universe and the Earth forming from the sun’s planetary nebula and life emerging from chemical reactions then evolving into humans, who just die and decay when we die but who should still do good as in not hurt each other even though there’s no eternal reward or punishment in any afterlife... and ask “so where is God in all that? you don’t believe in God?”

They clearly have some vague notion of some being from which everything came and for the sake of which everything is purposed, some fuzzy answer at the end of the chains of “how?” and “why?” that prompt all of philosophy, which naturalistic accounts don’t suffice for.

An atheist doesn’t believe in whatever that’ll supposed to be. Doesn’t think an explanatory of what is or what ought to be requires some vague ultimate answer in the form of a person: the usual kinds of answers will do.

yeah but it was a very serious believer who gave the world and atheists that knowledge of a Big Bang --- this gentleman: Georges Lemaître a Roman Catholic priest - and by the way it was the Roman Catholic Church who "invented" the scientific method : https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/no-catholic-church-no-scientific-method/

so the serious believers normally gave the atheists what they build their atheism on?
Strange...
:wink: