I think it's funny seeing many atheists comment on a thread about why they follow a religion. Not even one Christian (or Muslim) yet with a "because I know it's true."
It does in some sense but the key difference is what is the path. In the very strict sense the path to escape suffering does not a deity but is ultimately about one's own understanding of the nature of existence. From my understanding of Christianity salvation is obtained by the expression of faith in Jesus Christ. In that sense Jesus is the agent that redeems humanity from a state of suffering brought about by Original Sin. In the sense that to get there you need to understand that we are suffering, suffering is brought about by sin, by ending sin we can end suffering, and the path to end sin is through Jesus, that does parallel the Four Noble Truths in some way but not quite. "Sin" and "salvation" are not Buddhist concepts in terms of an action that is offensive to a spiritual morality and a rescue from a state of spiritual immorality to a blessed state through the agent of a deity. Fundamentally Buddhism has no deity who would be offended by particular actions or who might save some one from such a state. The Eightfold Path speaks of right actions, these don't mean 'not sinful' or even 'moral' actions but actions that further one's understanding (or harmony with) of existence. In that sense actions that are considered sinful in Christianity might also be considered not right in the Buddhist sense as they further one's ability to understand existence. For example gluttony is a sin in Christianity but in Buddhism to eat more than you need to just because of the pleasure of eating decreases you understanding of what is the purpose of eating. The bottom line is that Christianity is specifically deistic whereas Buddhism at its core isn't.
Not to go all Clinton on you, but it depends on what the definition of "your" and "religion" is. I go to the Methodist Church. Am I a good Methodist? Outwardly, probably. Am I a good Methodist theologically? Probably not as I read the Bible a bit more metaphorically than Wesley and most of my fellow church-goers. While my theology is definitely Christian, it doesn't fit neatly into any denomination. So, I follow my version of Christianity but that's not quite the same as my denomination's version.
Your statement could be taken in a number of ways, so just to clarify, are you suggesting that atheists claim to know the truth?
No. (Though they do.) I was reflecting on the relative absence of firm Christian apologetics in a thread specifically asking for it. Only a couple of posters even claimed to have a belief in God, and even they didn't attempt a firm argument (which isn't a criticism -- you can't do more than what you feel, right?). Where's rhester and Mrs. Valdez (okay, I know where she's at) and MadMax et al to come and testify?
Maybe they've had this very argument for years and don't feel the need or desire to go at it again in a thread like this just because it asks for it.
Let's face it - religious folk don't have "reasons" for belief that would satisfy atheists. They believe for a number of reasons that just aren't good enough. That will never change because there's no God, so there will never be good enough reasons.
I wasn't arguing that there is for certainty no afterlife. I tried to make that clear with my first line "let's pretend..." I was responding to jank1434 (I should have quoted) saying that believing just because is better even if it's not based on truth. Perhaps I could have worded it better. The message I intended to get across is that truth is better than make-believe. I'm not saying I have the truth (I'm doing my best), but I'm not willing to accept make-believe just for the sake of hope.
Thanks for the clarification. Although, I couldn't disagree more that atheists (in general, of course) claim to know the truth. The following article explains it well. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsriskhell/a/CertianGod.htm And it just so happens that searching "Atheists don't know" on YouTube brings up this video from just 2 days ago... <iframe width="560" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2m3qYFKxmYo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Of course, you can find multiple interpretations of these dynamics, but the parallel I was seeing was that spiritual re-birth gives new meaning and hope beyond earthly suffering-- a sort of rising above the profane plain which is an approximation of what I understand Buddhism to be about. Salvation is not immunity from sin or the pains thereof.
A chick gave me a copy of Siddhartha in 1966. She was older, had been living the Beat life in New York for a few years, and was down to visit her parents. They weren't happy with her live-in boyfriend, who was Chinese and a Buddhist, and she hoped to smove things over. I was working for her father at the time. She started coming over and we quickly became friends. She was very upset with how close minded her folks were. There was a terrific fight, apparently, because she came by and gave me a small hardcover of the novel that she'd signed, said it would bring me luck, gave me a kiss, and then left for New York. That was an interesting day.
Basically yes. There's more to it but its hard to explain without digging into some deeper philosophy. That may be the case but its still not a Buddhist concept. If you say that through religion you were saved the Buddhist view would be "saved from what?" A misconception about Buddhism is that it is about an escape from life and the world but what it really is about is about a greater understanding of life and the world. While Buddhist practice might be about getting away from a materialistic consumerist, you could use the word "profane" but that has some other meanings, life but the idea there is that those things are distractions from a better understanding of the world.
I am sorry I have taken up this so much of this thread with an explanation of the differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Just to add I am not saying Buddhism is necessarily superior only that there are differences.
