Atheism

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Setanta wrote:

I mentioned them specifically because they are not theists. Yeah, we've got a few, but they stay away from this thread. They take on blind faith that there is a special kind of understanding which they call enlightenment, which is different from and superior to your ordinary, garden variety human understanding. They take it on faith the their by Siddartha achieved "perfect" enlightenment. They take karma on faith, with its implication of a cycle of lives--and i say that they take these things on faith because they can't adduce a scintilla of evidence for them. Which leaves them in the same boat as the theists, saying all the while that they're not in the boat and that the boat is mere perception.

My understanding of the Buddhist path to date is that faith is a temporary expedient on the way to seeing things as they are for yourself. The further you advance in the training, the less need for faith. The Buddha said that his teachings (dhamma) are only a raft for crossing the metaphorical river (where you are no longer ignorant of the way things are). Once you cross the river, there is no need for his teachings anymore. This is, I think, in stark contrast to other soteriological systems in which the teachings are to be clung to despite all else.

Also, the Buddhadharma culminates in the calm acceptance of physical death as the end of the individual's conscious existence. In contrast to other soteriologies, the fact that there is no afterlife (nor a self to experience it in the first place: anatta) is gradually seen to be a good thing, rather than as something to be avoided through selfish delusions. Rebirth is the opposite of reincarnation due to the lack of an inherent, eternal spirit that might transmigrate. Phenomena propogate, but this does not entail anything like the existence of a permanent entity that endures throughout the propagation of phenomena.

But my understanding isn't perfect, so I'd welcome critiques of the above.

If you find that interesting, FBM, the strong atheist's path to faith ought to be even more interesting.

Strong atheists have abiding faith that there are no gods...and yet still mock theists for having abiding faith that there is at least one.

Whew! That certainly is something to sink your teeth into.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

It is important to realise that we can only give power to charlatans and that Mr Sagan is one of their number. As are his fawning dupes.

No honest person would accept being given power so there are only two choices--

1--Nobody has any power, or

2--Give it to charlatans. Who are easily recognised by their seeking power either with or without a Christian conscience. Barbara Stanwyck being noted for her sublime portrayals of not being encumbered in that way.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you find that interesting, FBM, the strong atheist's path to faith ought to be even more interesting.

Strong atheists have abiding faith that there are no gods...and yet still mock theists for having abiding faith that there is at least one.

Whew! That certainly is something to sink your teeth into.

Not sure why the atheist one would be more interesting than the other, really. The Buddhist path seems to lead to the gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience. I'm not sure how an atheist would ever be able to defend the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of anything, including a supernatural deity. Hume's problem of induction and all that.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you find that interesting, FBM, the strong atheist's path to faith ought to be even more interesting.

Strong atheists have abiding faith that there are no gods...and yet still mock theists for having abiding faith that there is at least one.

Whew! That certainly is something to sink your teeth into.

Not sure why the atheist one would be more interesting than the other, really. The Buddhist path seems to lead to the gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience. I'm not sure how an atheist would ever be able to defend the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of anything, including a supernatural deity. Hume's problem of induction and all that.

I agree that an atheist asserting that there is no god...cannot be asserting knowledge. The person has to be asserting a guess...with a great deal of certainty.

That, of course, is what theists do...make a guess that there is a GOD...and then assert that guess with what approaches certainty.

The thing I find interesting is not in the strong atheistic guess...but in the fact that strong atheists often mock theists for making a guess and insisting the guess is certainty...which really is what they are doing.

In any case, I've listened to the Buddhists in this forum...and if Buddhism is a path to a gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience...it doesn't seem to be working with them. The Buddhists here seem to take as much on faith (insistence that a guess is fact) as the theists or strong atheists. At least...that is what I see happening.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

Theists are just boring. They trot out the same tired old **** they've been spewing for thousands of years.

And atheists are the vanguards of exciting new breakthroughs in intellectual development.

How could I have missed it?

0 Replies

@FBM,

I don't know much about Buddhism I'm afraid except that when the Christian gun boats arrived in those lands the Buddhists were sitting ducks.

As they are now for our lifestyle.

Buddhism looks to be a quaint custom something like our Morris Dancers.

They are very given to gambling.

0 Replies

@FBM,

Upon what basis can you allege that there is a "path" that will lead you to seeing things "as they are," which is different from anyone else's experience of seeing what is usually referred to as "reality?" Upon what basis do you allege that what you call "the Buddha's teachings" are actually something that Siddhartha said?

(There is a gap of more than 300 years between when Siddhartha was alleged to have died and the oldest known copies of his teachings. The discrepancies in when he is alleged to have died are on the order of 75 years. This is significant because the oldest known Bhuddacanta was written in the second century of this era, more than 500 years after the most recent date given for his death, and almost 600 years if one accepts the earlier date of his death. This casts into the doubt the age of the texts of his alleged teachings. Leaving aside that even that date is in dispute [the discrepancy is more than 300 years], there is the further problem of when he was born. Some Buddhists think he was at Lumbini on one date, and some on another, which is 70 years earlier. Ignoring the superstitious claptrap which makes a joke of the accounts of his birth, you have the problem that the account had him born in a grove of trees--so that the temple at Lumbini which commemorates his birth cold not have been an older temple which was re-dedicated to Siddartha. That is significant because recent archaeological digs at Lumbini have uncovered the foundation(s) of one, and possibly two previous temples. So unless you want to allege that Siddhartha lived for three hundred years, the gap between his death and the earliest copies of his teachings stretches to six or even seven centuries. Even the Christians and the Muslims aren't that far out in the gap between their prophets and the oldest copies of their scriptures. Even just six hundred years is a lot of time for revision and expansion.)

You have the further problem of the title Buddha. Even if you were able to demonstrate that there is a difference between "normal" human understanding and what the Buddhists are pleased to call enlightenment (which i doubt you'll ever accomplish), what evidence do you have that Siddhartha achieved perfect enlightenment? I could really make a case for Buddhist superstition with the accounts of his birth and his life while still acting as an Indian Prince. Then there are all the tales of demons, as well as the particular superstitions of different sects--the Tibetans go hog wild with that stuff.

I'm sorry if this offends you, which is not my intent. The accounts of Siddhartha's life, and particularly his birth come about as close to the account of a god as you can come without actually stipulating that. Add his supposed attainment of perfect enlightenment, and claiming that Buddhists are atheist is a carnival side show.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you find that interesting, FBM, the strong atheist's path to faith ought to be even more interesting.

Strong atheists have abiding faith that there are no gods...and yet still mock theists for having abiding faith that there is at least one.

Whew! That certainly is something to sink your teeth into.

Not sure why the atheist one would be more interesting than the other, really. The Buddhist path seems to lead to the gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience. I'm not sure how an atheist would ever be able to defend the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of anything, including a supernatural deity. Hume's problem of induction and all that.

I agree that an atheist asserting that there is no god...cannot be asserting knowledge. The person has to be asserting a guess...with a great deal of certainty.

That, of course, is what theists do...make a guess that there is a GOD...and then assert that guess with what approaches certainty.

The thing I find interesting is not in the strong atheistic guess...but in the fact that strong atheists often mock theists for making a guess and insisting the guess is certainty...which really is what they are doing.

In any case, I've listened to the Buddhists in this forum...and if Buddhism is a path to a gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience...it doesn't seem to be working with them. The Buddhists here seem to take as much on faith (insistence that a guess is fact) as the theists or strong atheists. At least...that is what I see happening.

Frank I bet you have a hard time crossing the street. Aren't you afraid of being hit by invisible cars? Wait what's that? Invisible cars don't exist? How do you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about consistency, you just want to seem pompous instead. Funny how you pretend to know certain things but then magically claim uncertainty about other things and then attack those who never claimed certainty but instead used the same logical reasoning you would dealing with invisible cars. You still won't get it because your arrogance and ego are in the way of realizing how silly your arguments are.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

FBM wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you find that interesting, FBM, the strong atheist's path to faith ought to be even more interesting.

Strong atheists have abiding faith that there are no gods...and yet still mock theists for having abiding faith that there is at least one.

Whew! That certainly is something to sink your teeth into.

Not sure why the atheist one would be more interesting than the other, really. The Buddhist path seems to lead to the gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience. I'm not sure how an atheist would ever be able to defend the claim of absolute knowledge of the non-existence of anything, including a supernatural deity. Hume's problem of induction and all that.

I agree that an atheist asserting that there is no god...cannot be asserting knowledge. The person has to be asserting a guess...with a great deal of certainty.

That, of course, is what theists do...make a guess that there is a GOD...and then assert that guess with what approaches certainty.

The thing I find interesting is not in the strong atheistic guess...but in the fact that strong atheists often mock theists for making a guess and insisting the guess is certainty...which really is what they are doing.

In any case, I've listened to the Buddhists in this forum...and if Buddhism is a path to a gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience...it doesn't seem to be working with them. The Buddhists here seem to take as much on faith (insistence that a guess is fact) as the theists or strong atheists. At least...that is what I see happening.

Frank I bet you have a hard time crossing the street. Aren't you afraid of being hit by invisible cars?

Not at all.

Quote:

Wait what's that? Invisible cars don't exist?

If you want to make the assertion that invisible cars do not exist...make it. And if someone asks you to substantiate it...do that, if you are able.

I will not make such an assertion.

Quote:

How do you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about consistency, you just want to seem pompous instead.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Krumple. You want to ask a question...answer it yourself...and then hold me to account for your answer.

Not the brightest or most ethical way to deal with an issue! (Mind you, I am not accusing you of being bright or ethical.)

Quote:

Funny how you pretend to know certain things but then magically claim uncertainty about other things and then attack those who never claimed certainty but instead used the same logical reasoning you would dealing with invisible cars. You still won't get it because your arrogance and ego are in the way of realizing how silly your arguments are.

Look up straw men...Krumple. And then when you are willing to deal with what I have actually written...do what I do...quote what I say and then argue against that.

Of course, it is much easier for you to argue against what you make up...so I understand why you do it. Actually, I get a big kick out of it! Wink

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

make a guess that there is a GOD...and then assert that guess with what approaches certainty.

That may well be what the Theists Apisa has chosen to pontificate about may be doing but he has no evidence for the assertion. And, on his own oft stated principle, he ought not to have a view on the matter.

But it is not what is happening. Which is that the guess is not a guess at all but something thought through and when accepted (believed) leads to effects and if the effects are deemed beneficial , to whom is another matter, the certainty derives from them being beneficial and from nothing else. The benefit might well be only the negative one of providing less aggravation. It does not necessarily mean providing no aggravation. Just less of it.

The rejection of the thought out position (the guess) can only arise in those who do not think the effects beneficial and it is understandable that they will advance another position, thought through, which gains widespread acceptance.

I wish they would get on and do so.

I have been getting an impression recently that politicians are becoming as wary of scientists as the Church was of Galileo. Possibly for the same reason too. That no way forward was on offer but there might be some uses to be gained from it although kid gloves might be in order.

If the masses are appraised that we have added a few fanciful stories to help them to produce the effects we seek then they might well cease to behave in the manner we have told them to which is already fanciful enough bearing in mind the contents of the archives. And who knows what will happen then?

Continuously carping at the "guess" our Culture chose is as fatuous as fatuous gets. It is not the "guess". It is the belief in the "guess" and the consequences which follow from it. Both of which, whatever the "guess" is, are facts.

Anyone content with the "guess" will believe it. Not-contents will not.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The temptation to do what you want to do and then invent a theory that fits it is very well known. The Robin Hood trick.

I don't suppose anyone here would invent a theory to fit what they want to do if it was criminal. Not that it can't be done.

Hence undermining a theory that merely disapproves of what you want to do when you have a perfect legal right to do it can only be motivated by a desire to persuade those who merely disapprove to approve. They already have to tolerate it.

So what's the beef? A chap wearing a fox-terrier mask in the dogging programme said--"Doggin's gone all to ****. I spend most of my time on the internet looking for somedody to meet and I should be out in the woods shaggin'.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I'm interested in why fairy tales such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't get equal treatment in your philosophy. Because to me they have the same validity as the passed down ramblings of illiterate goat herders trying to understand why the sun rises in the morning.

2 Replies

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

I'm interested in why fairy tales such as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't get equal treatment in your philosophy. Because to me they have the same validity as the passed down ramblings of illiterate goat herders trying to understand why the sun rises in the morning.

Why do you say that I do not give them equal treatment, Wilso?

I am dealing with the question of, "What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence?"

Has everything always existed...with no beginning?

Has something always existed...with no beginning?

Was there a beginning...is it that nothing has ever existed with no beginning?

I ponder these questions as so many here do...and as so many have through the years.

It is a very difficult scenario even to contemplate...let alone come to any conclusions.

Science, it seems to me, appears to just pass the buck...to push the problem back. It suggests there was a Big Bang...and THIS universe came into existence, but we are left with the problem of what came before (if anything) and what exists concurrently (if anything).

For me...all options are on the table.

I don't expect resolution...I don't expect an answer. That seems as remote as finding out for certain that sentient life exists on a planet circling a particular star in another galaxy.

But it is fun to wonder about it.

When I hear someone suggest it has to be "x"...or that it cannot possible be "x"...I offer an observation...a personal observation. (More about that in a second.)

Essentially all these questions resolve to the "GOD" specific.

If EVERYTHING always has existed with no beginning...that seems to point to no GOD...or to EVERYTHING being GOD...which in my mind is the same thing.

If SOMETHING always has existed with no beginning (but not everything)...that seems to point to a GOD...with creation of the rest being a function performed by that something.

Neither of those are with certainty...but that is the line I am taking.

Anyway...my personal observation is:

I (PERSONALLY) do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

When it comes to Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy...I am almost always being engaged by an atheist who has already decided that there is only one correct answer to this very complex problem...and is merely trying to mock the notion of "I do not know."

But, Wilso, if you look at what I am actually saying...you will see that I am treating them equally.

Look at my personal observation again...and see if you can understand that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Look at my personal observation again...and see if you can understand that.

Fat chance of that when Wilso insists on the ad hom of "goat-herders" for the writers of the most famous book in the world and the obvious and unanimous choice of being the first ever printed book copies of which are now of inestimable value.

Not that FBM will consider it to be an ad hom because she is in sympathy with Wilso. But it is nevertheless.

Understanding is out of the question in such circumstances.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

You won't get **** out of frank, wilso.

1 Reply

Quote:

Spendius said: Buddhism looks to be a quaint custom something like our Morris Dancers.

Except that the Little Puddington Morris Men don't run riot through the streets and kick the krap out of the police like these Buddhists are doing in the Far East.
If this is "enlightenment" they can keep it.. Smile

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/budd-riots.jpg~original

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...In any case, I've listened to the Buddhists in this forum...and if Buddhism is a path to a gradual elimination of faith in favor of direct experience...it doesn't seem to be working with them. The Buddhists here seem to take as much on faith (insistence that a guess is fact) as the theists or strong atheists. At least...that is what I see happening.[/b]

Yes, in my experience that's what most Buddhists do. It's a gradual path and there's no guarantee that anyone will break free of beliefs. The Sutta Nipata in particular encourages skepticism, but it isn't the most popular of the Buddhist literature.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Upon what basis can you allege that...

I'm not offended at all, and my skepticism regarding the Buddhist path addresses these very same issues and more. I'm not a believer in Buddhism; I'm just describing my understanding of it to date. I don't know for sure whether or not there is such a thing as enlightenment, whether or not Siddhartha actually said this or that, etc etc. I'm intimately familiar with many of the supernatural superstitions in real Buddhist cultures, and that's one reason I'm not still wearing robes. While I was a novice monk, a group of monks from our monastery went to Wat Pah Pong, where Ajahn Chah lived and where his living quarters (kuti) are preserved. The monks of Wat Pah Pong told our monks that one night they saw some glowing lights and discovered that Ajahn Chah's old, dried-out turds had turned into sarira, proving that he'd been enlightened. It was about that time that I started making plans to disrobe. Wink

0 Replies

2 Replies

@Wilso,

Nice! I'm stealing that one. Very Happy

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know