Love is the same, isn't it? Everyone I know or have ever heard about has different definitions and descriptions of "love", and, yes, it's almost always vague. But don't we all "believe" in love?
Baron Max
Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
Love is the same, isn't it? Everyone I know or have ever heard about has different definitions and descriptions of "love", and, yes, it's almost always vague. But don't we all "believe" in love?
Baron Max
Is God just an emotion?
That's not what my post was about and you know it, Spider! ...LOL!
Wanna' try it again, or do you want to continue to play your little ignorance game?
Baron Max
In what way "believe" in love?
What is love?
What is it about love that I am supposed to believe?
That it exists? Exists as what?
I thought the question was simple ....do you believe in love? That ain't hard to grasp is it?
What do you think it is? I'm asking you for YOUR thoughts and opinions and beliefs. Sort of just how people often ask "What is God?" Same question format, just a different subject.
Those are questions that were implied when I asked the first, main question. Again, for your questions, you tell me. It's just like some people ask about God, ain't it? Are you one of those that asks religious people about God?
Baron Max
Technically, no.
Practically. In a sense. Atheism often, especially in forums like this one, come out of a set of beliefs related to epistemology. Not everyone who shares these beliefs applies them consistantly - hence there are theist scientists, for example. But there is a worldview - one that is in part a reaction especially to the Abrahamic religions - that a portion of atheism springs from.
There are atheists who just never got inta that church thing. I mean people who simply lack a belief and are not going to get, however, into long arguments with theists about evidence, etc. They lack a belief, for intuitive or tempermental reasons, or reasoning that they are only interested in applying to themselves.
But the kind of skepticism/emphasis on certain kinds of reasoning techniques - however unevenly applied by those who could be said to be primarily secular (even if they are theists) - is a kind of religion.
Only if you redefine "religion" into meaninglessness. There is no consistent atheist position on the cause, nature or purpose of the universe. You get everything from nihilism to Buddhism to indifference.
What you're referring to isn't atheism as such, but some conflation of methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. There are plenty of theists that subscribe to the former, and who would be outraged to hear you assert that they're members of some other, ill-defined atheist "religion." Metaphysical naturalism gets closer to what a lot of atheists exhibit, at least in the West, but still isn't the same thing as atheism as such. Plenty of atheists believe in supernatural entities; just not deities.
I don't think nihilism, Buddhism or indifference have positions on the origin or the purpose of the universe, so I am not sure their positions are inconsistent. In fact I would say they are consistent in focusing elsewhere.
And Buddhism is often considered a religion so the ground is already muddy. Of course some Buddhists are theists, but not all.
I did try to make it clear I was focusing on a subset of atheists, ones who do tend to share a set of beliefs in scientific methology and 'Reason' - big R but also citation marks to show I have questions about it.
Sure, plenty of atheist believe in things like a persistent self or a non-embodied reason and other such supernatural entities. I doubt many atheist believe in what are traditionally seen as supernatural entities, at least not the subset I was referring to and the ones relevent to these kinds of online discussions. I mean it is, I am quite sure, true that 'out there' atheists are very diverse, but in here, in these discussions, there is generally common worldview amongst atheists. And this extends to the popular atheist writers right now. The particular argument, online, between atheists and theists represents, mainly, two groups, the particular subset of atheists I mentioned above and Abrahamic theists. There are exceptions of course. But we have two groups with methodologies and metaphysical entities and so on. And I think it is fair to call both religions, at least from where I stand, a pagan on the sidelines. In fact it is what they share that stands out: faith in something transcendent - God or reason - and a mechanistic relations to and understanding of whatever is not human.
Theists come in a pretty wide grouping also and most of them do not fit a lot of the criticisms aim at the Abrahamic groups. And when they refer to the problems that religions cause you can see they are primarily or only talking about a subset.
The dialogue takes predictable forms precisely because two common approaches are crashing into each other. Two sets of beliefs.
These are not perfect sets, but what are on the sociological levels?
Of course Buddhism is a religion. And a great many Buddhists are atheists, in the sense of not believing in deities. Religions need not be theistic.
"Here" being, presumably, the white population of the West?
It's vague because God is an unknown quantity. If the quantity was known, God would fall squarely within the realm of physics and wouldn't be God at all. Any description of God that is in direct conflict with science is therefore incorrect. In fact I would even go so far as to say that any description of God at all is probably incorrect, simply because you can't describe something when there isn't even a shred of physical evidence from which you could at least derive a single clue about it's true nature.
Right. I believe I said it was a religion. And I believe it was implicit in what I wrote that religions need not be theistic. I was pointing out that in the West people tend to assume Buddhists are non-theistic, period, but this is not the case. But Buddhism is not always considered a religion in these forums, I've noticed, since one does not have to believe in supernatural entities and, in the West, this tends to be the case. I've seen adherents here in this forums make the case it was not a religion while they participated in criticism of theists, defining theism as having precisely supernatural entities.
I was thinking more online discussion forums, yes, mostly from the West. I was not thinking about race at all.
From what i understand, Buddhism is a religion. What we see in the west or here is one aspect and it is basically the meditative aspect. Anything more than tht and specifically when it comes to reincarnation is based in Theism and the supernatural.
Last edited:
Unknown relative to who? Known relative to who? You? Society at large?
Within concept (the logical (t/f) limits of human intellect), one can peel through layers of understanding to nail the truth. If there is any sort of God, the best we can do is approach metaconcepts (anything that lies beyond concept) as they relate to concepts. What scientists are faling to do when attempting to unrwravel the truth of nature are 2 main things.
1. Approach truth objectively without throwing in preconceptions (which they are completely unaware they do).
2. Try to solve more complex problems without first addressing less complex issues. There are no shortcuts. Instead of asking questions, one must first take a look at every truth that he is certain of. Then derive new conclusions from them. And continue to build and build upon them.
I like this approach.
Probably better working with the word love, but I also thought one could use the word 'self'.
It depends on the local beliefs that were present in the area before Buddhism arrived. Buddhism is easier than some religions when it comes to mixing beliefs. So polytheistic areas can remain polytheistic. Though in general I would agree. When it is theistic it reminds more of monotheism than polytheism.
Reincarnation would be viewed by most scientifically inclined as a supernatural theory. Even in anatman forms we are still talking about a belief in processes not supported by science. Though not specified denied by science, I suppose.
Logically this is simply a statement that one believes in god, since the double negative cancels itself out. "I do
I believe it's more a matter of intellectual honesty. There is a limit to human knowledge and it's impossible to make such an absolute statement regarding all possible gods. Therefore, unless god is specifically defined it's more accurate to state that one does believe in a god rather than to assert that no possible god exists.
But I find this mostly to be meaningless quibbling over definitions and I can see no reason to force the constraint other than your personal preference. If you prefer the term godless for those who do not believe in god(s) and the term atheist for those who assert that no god(s) exist I'm fine with that. I'll do it one further and call myself a naturalistic pantheist if it makes you more comfortable. It really has no effect on what I do or do not believe in.
~Raithere
The issue was what the Buddhists who believe in reincarnation view it as. That's what determines whether the content of their beliefs is "supernatural" or not.