Atheism a religion

[lightgigantic]

The word Buddha is derived from the verb 'budh' which means 'to know'...at least according to the 16 volume oxford dictionary.

Knowing as opposed to ignorance...so the word Buddha really means 'the knower'.

A few historical Zen masters I used to read about claimed that no monk is truly a Buddhist until they attain some measure of enlightenment.

that Sanskrit root (budh) also appears in numerous vedic texts too and is explained in the same way (knowledge which gives enlightenment etc)

Obviously to be a "buddhist" suggests more of a methodology than a linguistic investigation of "budh" suggests

 

[lightgigantic]

Supe

“
what is the difference between taking a metaphysical stance and implementing a metaphysical stance?
”
Well, taking a stance on an issue and implementing a policy on an issue are two different things. I'm against the war in Iraq vs I am going to throw myself in front of the next tank that tries to enter Iraq. Or, I dismiss the claims of theists vs My idea of atheism will now rule your every move.

One involves an opinion, the other action. Pretty obvious, huh?

but isn't there a spontaneous relationship between opinion and action?
for instance if enough americans are against the war in iraq, won't the tanks stop rolling?

“
(and in light of these two metaphysical options, how does religion clearly stand on one side and atheism the other)?
”
Religion is the action, atheism is the opinion.

Religions are not passive, atheism is (Oh I can hear it coming now...). As in, religions make claims, atheists do not. The definition of atheism I am using is the common one that state we simply have no belief in a god(s). NOT that there emphatically is no god. Therefore, our stance is passive. That does not mean we do not take action to keep the active forcing of religious doctrine out of public policy (government).

this seems contradictory
atheism is passive -atheism is a passive .... yet there are very clear social policies that are enacted that are distinct of atheism

In short there are three scopes for action

action of the mind - opinion
action of words - working others to come to that opinion
action of the body - bringing some "result" or "effect" in place as a consequence of that opinion

for instance the fact that you contribute to this site indicates you are acting with your words for the cause of atheism - if you were truly passive there would be no discussion

 

[iceaura]

Carcano was suggesting that buddhists that worship Buddha are somehow removed from the original standard of Buddhism ... which struck me as a strange suggestion

It struck me as an obvious and unremarkable statement of fact.

What would you think of a Taoist who worshipped Lao Tzu? A Muslim who worshipped Muhammed ? Certainly they would be removed from the original standards of their respective religion.

Again, Christianity is the only religion I can think of that has the difficulty you describe, in that there is a possible real question of whether Jesus was a Christian. If you take Paul as the essential founder of the religion, Jesus was of course dead by that time, and never a Christian. If you somehow take Jesus as the founder, then the question arises. But that is a very unusual situation.

 

[lightgigantic]

It struck me as an obvious and unremarkable statement of fact.

What would you think of a Taoist who worshipped Lao Tzu? A Muslim who worshipped Muhammed ? Certainly they would be removed from the original standards of their respective religion.

Again, Christianity is the only religion I can think of that has the difficulty you describe, in that there is a possible real question of whether Jesus was a Christian. If you take Paul as the essential founder of the religion, Jesus was of course dead by that time, and never a Christian. If you somehow take Jesus as the founder, then the question arises. But that is a very unusual situation.

A buddhist follows the example of buddha
a Muslim follows the example of Muhammed
a christian follows the example of Jesus

what is it exactly that buddha, Muhammed and Jesus are following?

 

[superluminal]

A buddhist follows the example of buddha
a Muslim follows the example of Muhammed
a christian follows the example of Jesus

And an atheist follows the example of...?

 

[superluminal]

And an atheist follows the example of...?

I know, I know. Hitler. Stalin. Dawkins...

 

[S.A.M.]

There are a lot of different kinds of atheists. They have no common creed, etc.

They vary considerably in their opinion of religion, for one thing - everything from the blight of all to the finest spiritual creation.

The ones that were raised in cultures without strong and particular theistic beliefs tend to be less actively rejecting, and more indifferent, in my personal experience. The ones surrounded by the more cult-like or abusive monotheistic institutions are more strident, or closeted.

For example: A certain percentage of Catholic priests - I recall an estimate of 4 - 11%, from an anonymous survey - are atheistic. Clearly these are not the same sorts of atheists that one sees stereotyped around this forum.

There are several formally atheistic religions, or religions with atheistic sects and branches.

So atheism would be several religions, if it's any, and very vaguely defined ones. It seems a useless attempt at applying an irrelevant concept to a poorly understood situation, to me, but if you really feel you gain something by trying to make it fit, have at 'er.

You could be talking about theism.

 

[Carcano]

That Sanskrit root (budh) also appears in numerous Vedic texts too, and is explained in the same way (knowledge which gives enlightenment etc)

Yes but this 'knowledge' is not what we think of as 'information'.

If that were the case enlightenment could be learned in a classroom.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

A paradigm I often teach:

Observation --> Data --> Information --> Knowledge --> Wisdom

 

[Frud11]

Yes but this 'knowledge' is not what we think of as 'information'.

But we're all clearly, religious, or spiritual, or animistic. We all believe that there is something we can experience which is "beyond" our thinking. Don't you do this?

 

[iceaura]

A buddhist follows the example of buddha
a Muslim follows the example of Muhammed
a christian follows the example of Jesus

No they don't. They live ordinary lives enlightened and informed by the teachings of their prophet.

In an ordinary Christian's case, the teachings of Paul and the Gospel writers, mostly.

The original question was about "worship", not "follow the example of", anyway. You seemed to think it strange that a Buddhist would not normally, or originally, worship the Buddha.

You could be talking about theism.

As I mentioned above, of course. Theism is not a religion. There are even areligious theists - and would be more, one would think, if the choice were not hidden and confused. The cooption of all deity - even all spirituality - by organized religion is one of the crimes on its account.

 

[lightgigantic]

No they don't. They live ordinary lives enlightened and informed by the teachings of their prophet.

In an ordinary Christian's case, the teachings of Paul and the Gospel writers, mostly.

and such writings are esteemed by the practitioners because they indicate something of the nature of the original preceptor

The original question was about "worship", not "follow the example of", anyway. You seemed to think it strange that a Buddhist would not normally, or originally, worship the Buddha.

any sort of following, if the preceptor is sufficiently awed and revered, easily becomes worship.
And in the case of Buddhism, it is the later schools (zen) that are most strictly opposed to it (and you find also, by no coincidence, that it is the zen buddhists who are most spontaneous in their habits and practices)

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes but this 'knowledge' is not what we think of as 'information'.

If that were the case enlightenment could be learned in a classroom.

yes I agree
my point was that your breaking things down etymologically doesn't indicate a difference between the vedic and buddhist use of the root - I mean to suggest that Buddhism has something else packed into it apart from the traditional usage of the root "budh"

 

[Frud11]

There's the thing about the thing, if it can't be 'described' in any way, shape or form: trying to look for meaning is pointless. Any Zen master or Oriental guru will probably tell you this. It isn't anything to do with the meanings of words (or what words are).

 

[Nasor]

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I forget who said that.

I always preferred “Atheism is a religion like 'I don’t play football' is a football team."

 

[USS Exeter]

Atheism is not a religion, it is merely a lack of a religion.

 

[Roman]

Atheism CAN be a religion. But that doesn't make an atheist religious.

 

[USS Exeter]

Atheism CAN be a religion. But that doesn't make an atheist religious.

It doesn't make any sense to me, aetheism is not organized, no rules, no beliefs, nothing. I do not see the paradox you are trying to describe.

 

[(Q)]

Atheism CAN be a religion. But that doesn't make an atheist religious.

Ok, what supernatural entities that control human destinies do atheists claim to exist?

 

[Roman]

It doesn't make any sense to me, aetheism is not organized, no rules, no beliefs, nothing. I do not see the paradox you are trying to describe.

Paradox? It's not a paradox.

What if my atheism is organized and has rules, and beliefs? What if I put my faith in Modus Ponens or something.

Since we lack complete information, anything we do will inevitably involve beliefs. So if I want to tack on a bunch of wacky beliefs to not believing, then, there you go.

I'm fairly sure I could construct an atheist religious organization.