Agnostics

If you draw the logical arguement out to its end, yes. To take the modern day definition of someone who simply doesn't ascribe to any god(s), well then no. However, to ascribe to no (g)ods leaves one with the question, what's the point of life? We're all just gonna die anyway. Why should I search for pleasant sensations in my mind? You see...these are the necessary questions that must be asked if one is to deny God, transcendence etc. I think it leaves one with only option and that is Nietzsche, nihilisim (which he was even though he tried to deny it), and the will to power, beyond reason, love, goodness, and evil.

 

The Buddha rejected both extremes of eternalism and nihilism._

To develop Right View or Perfect View, we must first be aware of two views which are considered imperfect or wrong.

The first view is eternalism. This doctrine or belief is concerned with eternal life or with eternal things. Before the Buddha's time, it was taught that there is an abiding entity which could exist forever, and that man can live the eternal life by preserving the eternal soul in order to be in union with Supreme Being. In Buddhism, this teaching is called sassata ditthi ----the view of eternalists. Such views still exist even in the modern world owing to man's craving for eternity.

Why did the Buddha deny the teaching of eternalism? Because when we understand the things of this world as they truly are, we cannot find anything which is permanent or which exists forever. Things change and continue to do so according to the changing conditions on which they depend. When we analyse things into their elements or into reality, we cannot find any abiding entity, any everlasting thing. This is why the eternalist view is considered wrong or false.

The second false view is nihilism or the view held by the nihilists who claim that there is no life after death. This view belongs to a materialistic philosophy which refuses to accept knowledge of mental conditionality. To subscribe to a philosophy of materialism is to understand life only partially. Nihilism ignores the side of life which is concerned with mental conditionality. If one claims that after the passing away or ceasing of a life, it does not come to be again, the continuityof mental conditions is denied. To understand life, we must consider all conditions, both mental and material. When we understand mental and material conditions, we cannot say that there is no life after death and that there is no further becoming after passing away. This nihilist view of existence is considered false because it is based on incomplete understanding of reality. That is why nihilism was also rejected by the Buddha. The teaching of kamma is enough to prove that the Buddha did not teach annihilation after death; Buddhism accepts 'survival' not in the sense of an eternal soul, but in the sense of a renewed becoming.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

 

I came to the conclusion that there is no "point" to life some time ago. I am going to die, but why shouldn't I fill the interim period with pleasant sensations? That thought honestly doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

Well, DD, we do disagree on a lot of things outside of basketball (in basketball, we seem to be on the same page).

At the risk of being a ditto-head, can I just say, "ditto," here?

The closest I came to being Christian was when I attended a Lutheran church while living in Iowa City. I didn't have to listen to a bunch of no-tolerance BS. A good church.

But then I was just attending to make my other half happy. When we split, well, there went my "Christianity."

If you look at world events today, you'll see a lot of religious fundamentalism on opposite sides, and thence we have war, war, and, uh, more war.

 

tw,

Out of curiousity, how do you define "theology"?

I really don't understand how you are creating two definitions for "atheist": an "old, original" one to which you describe and a "modern" one that you feel is wrong.

 

That's like the time my politics professor gave us a test with one question, what is politics?

Offhand, my words will most certainly fail me and my Aquinas Division and Methods of the Sciences is in the car, but I must say it is a study of God, Man, and Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Cosmos, and the relationship betwixt them all. It is the study of existence and being as one of liturgy and sacrament, an act of praise worship and sacraficial love. It is a study of the transcendentals, the good, the true, the one, the beautiful.

I don't think I'm creating two definitions for atheism, just trying to refine one, what you call the modern, and show what atheism's true logical conclusion must neccessarily entail. Bailey seems to be a case of someone I would call close to playing atheism out to its logical end, and I would say that he is lacking the fullness of that word only in his reliance on this world. How does this world even exist without some sort of power (for a naturalist, or what would sometimes today be called a "science is everything" person, this would be the power of the cosmos, some unseen scientific force, be it gravity or whatnot that holds the world in balance) holding it together. What I'm getting at is, where can Bailey even draw the clear and distinct conclusion that there is a reality that there is a world around him, is it simply cogito ergo sum? Or is it some sort of faith that there even is a cogito. I just think a lot of times today people say the word atheism and just ascribe the superficial meaning of the word without a knowledge of all it entails.

Simply put its like this-- Either thought and reality cover some ground some tangible something, or they cover no ground and have no content. We can either think or not think, and remember, Descartes says there are only two clear and present ideas, I (the one who thinks) and God. To refute the process of thought not only eliminates God, but it also eliminates the self. To me atheism to its full conclusion refutes both of these clear and present ideas, most notably seen in the writings of Nietzsche.

Well, I need sleep, I hope I didn't put all of you guys to sleep. Sorry that was really inarticulate.

 

no no , it was very well written!

my personal metaphysical worldview basically comes down to a few tests that usually lead me to what I believe to be the truth:

1. science is everthing
2. always go with the simplier explanation aka Occam's razor

 

Yay! I'm close to being an atheist.

I can't draw the conclusion that the world around me exists. My existence is the only one of which I am sure, following the reasoning of Descartes.

I also can't draw the conclusion that the world around me doesn't exist. And in this situation I have arbitrarily decided to choose to behave as if the world around me exists.

Who says it needs some sort of power? Maybe it just is.

I don't believe that affirming the process of free thought logically proves the existence of God.

 

wanted to second this post with some more orthodox buddhist teachings.

"According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty... According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, as well as according to the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it is called Atman, 'I', Soul, Self, or Ego, is considered only a false belief, a mental projection. This is the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, No-Soul or No-Self.

The negation of an imperishable Atman is the common characteristic of all dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle...

A bhikkhu once asked him [Buddha]: 'Sir, is there a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found?'

'Yes, bhikku, there is,' answered the Buddha, 'A man has the following view: 'The universe is that Atman [soul], I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity'. He hears the Tathagata or a disciple of his, preaching the doctirne aiming at the complete destruction of all speculativve views... aiming at the extinction of 'thirst', aiming at detachment, cessation, Nirvana. Then that man thinks: 'I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I will be no more.' So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps, beating his breast, and becomes bewildered. Thus, O bhikkus, there is a case where one is tormented when something permanent within oneself is not found.'

Elsewhere the Buddha says: 'O Bhikkhus, this idea that I may not be, I may not have, is frightening to the uninstructed worldling.'

Those who want to find a 'Self' in Buddhism argues as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things is self (soul). But he does not say that there is no self (soul) at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates.

This position is untenable for two reasons:

One is that, according to the Buddha's teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.

The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. Let us take some examples.

In the Dhammapada there are three verses extremely important and essential in the Buddha's teaching. There are nos. 5,6, and 7 of Chapter XX.

The first two verses say:

'All conditioned things are impermanent' and 'All conditioned things are duhhka (suffering, emptiness)'.

The third verse says: 'All dhammas (all things conditioned and unconditioned) are without self (soul)'...

In the Alagaddupama-sutta, addressing his disciples, the Buddha said: 'O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavada) in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, and tribulatoin. But do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?'

'Certainly not, Sir.'

'Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, do not see a soul theory, in the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and lamentation.'

If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha's view, there is no such soul theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kinds of problems...

Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta:
'O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self (soul) can truly and really be found, this speculative view: 'The universe is that Atman (soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity' - is it not wholly and completely foolish?'

Here the Buddha explicitly states that an Atman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe that there is such a thing...

According to the Buddha's teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion 'I have no self' (which is the annihiliationist/nihilist theory) as to hold the opinion 'I have self' (which is the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I AM'. The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta (no-self) is not to take hold of any opinions or views, but to try to see things objectively as they are without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I', or 'being', is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence.

Here naturally a question arises: If there is no Atman or Self, who gets the results of karma (actions)? No one can answer this question better than the Buddha himself. When this question raised by a bhikkhu the Buddha said: 'I have taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things.'

The Buddha's teaching on Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self, should not be considered as negative or annihilistic. Like Nirvana, it is Truth, Reality; and Reality cannot be negative. It is the false belief in a non-existing imaginary self that is negative.

- Above entirely excerpted from "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula
===================================

Reading the above may sound like reading the script from the Matrix, but it also is a testament to the spectacular logical consistency of Buddha's teachings. I personally feel that it is the most humanistic and life-affirming set of religious teachings i've ever encountered. Its emphasis on compassion and ethical conduct is up there with the noblest sentiments of Christ. Furthermore, its affirmation that any man's ideas and influence carries significance and consequences in THIS WORLD long after he's dead is absent from Christianity.

It is unfortunate that many of its teachers and followers today have lost sight of his original vision. I highly recommend the Rahula book to anyone who's thought deeply about religion. A good friend of mine (a Sanskrit scholar) introduced me to it in college, and it really opened my eyes.

I still find some faults with Buddha's teachings, it being fundamentally a detached, almost escapist, philophy, somewhat unsuitable for the hot-blooded passion of youth, but maybe I'm just reading a little too much into it. I don't know. Even when I suffer the pangs of loves lost, I still would never for a moment consider giving up loving altogether. There is still too much in this world worth fighting for.

 

I went to the cathedral school in my home town, and attended church approximately 50 times over the seven years I was there. In addition, after attending three years of compulsory religious education classes, I feel that I have enough insight, certainly into the Christian religion.

 

"Supernatural Being" is also a metaphor, a symboland I don't think all Gods are beings. We have to say it is a being because it's the best we can do. It is all concepts. The ultimate reality trandcends all notions and concepts. It really can't be talked about. How do tell someone what strawberry tastes like? You can't. Each individuals's God is unique. Strawberry, choco, and every other flavor imaginable.

 

unless of course, you're wrong...and there is truly a Creator who is a being...not a human being, but a being nonetheless. and our subjective whims don't matter, because He is simply because He is.

"Who do you say that you are?"

"I am."

 

"Being" is just a label, an idea. Like tree, or me, or I.

 

so you say.

label is just a label. you play word games like that all day. we can define every word we use like lawyers all day long. que est veritas. of course, lawyers is just a label too...like everything else. therefore, we can never have a discussion on this board or elsewhere because our minds are too small to fathom the concept of defining a word with a shared understanding of what it means. some might even call that communication...but that of course would just be labelling.