Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 36
15
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
grimpachi and lucid, etc

mahayana buddhism would be yoda (who was sorta zen, which i'm assuming means that zen is an offshoot of mahayana).

i guess mahayana is like a school of thought regarding buddhism that has a more personable and compassionate approach, versus the other (the name of which i've forgotten), which was more detached from humanity, rigid, legalistic. in christian circles, that would be called "so heavenly minded you're no earthly good." lol legalism vs. grace, etc.

i think dalai lama is mahayana.

edit on 8-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Could you please rephrase or explain further. I would really like to understand what you are trying to say and I think what you are saying is relatively important that I don’t want to misinterpret it.

I am not trying to be difficult hers but with many of your posts I feel like I need an interpreter to get the real meaning that you are trying to convey so a lot of times I do my best and hope that I am getting the full meaning however this time I am really having a hard time understanding you. Sorry for the inconvenience.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by undo
 


Could you please rephrase or explain further. I would really like to understand what you are trying to say and I think what you are saying is relatively important that I don’t want to misinterpret it.

I am not trying to be difficult hers but with many of your posts I feel like I need an interpreter to get the real meaning that you are trying to convey so a lot of times I do my best and hope that I am getting the full meaning however this time I am really having a hard time understanding you. Sorry for the inconvenience.


was further information on the different kinds of buddhism. not just deist or atheist/agnostic buddhists. no further meaning than that. lol sorry, i tend to talk to the audience and most people who hang out on ats, have a basic knowledge of words like "papacy" and what not. i'll start addressing my posts to you as if you have no idea about most of the stuff i talk about, but it helps if i actually know the person i'm talking to first, so i know what it is i need to clarify, otherwise, some people might think i'm talking down to them by explaining everything as i type it. eh no biggie. this conversation is winding down anyway, doncha think?
edit on 8-12-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I would appreciate if you wrote to me in simpler terms it would help a lot.
As I said before I probably have more knowledge about Buddhism than Christianity but that does not mean much. To give you an idea almost everything I know about Buddhism I have learned from a friend in Korea through casual conversation. I usually do not read the threads concerning religion my main interests concern politics, new technology, scientific finds, and a variety of social issues. On a few occasions I have read through some conspiracy threads but I do not normally add anything to them.

As far as this thread I think it has a way to go. I do not think this thread was started with altruistic intent so naturally it has gone off topic quite a bit which has allowed some interesting things to be discussed. If this thread had not deviated from the course it was set on I think it would be nothing but bickering for the most part but I think it has actually been shaped into something of an exploritory nature where many things can be discussed which loosely hold to the original question.

At one point I was slightly leaning into the possibility that atheism could be considered a religion however a day later someone posted some information that adequately dismissed that notion from my mind. I do not think everyone has been thoroughly convinced at least not for those who may be truly seeking an answer. The fact that I had started to change my mind means that this is worth exploring further in my opinion. As long as the thread is active someone may come along with an opinion with an explanation completely new that could be absolutely fascinating.


These kind of threads are so open ended I do not think they should ever die.

To stay with the topic there is a one on one debate tackling the question dealing with the same substance first posed in this thread which I have been watching for a while. In my opinion it is worth keeping tabs on. Here is the link if you are interested.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8-12-2012 by Grimpachi because: refrase



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by vasaga
 




Buddhism asserts that there are gods

Buddha did not.


and even though these gods exist in parallel to humans and are completely different than the Abrahamic god, in the sense that it's not an all-powerful creator, no need of worship and so on, they still believe in them.

There are many Buddhist 'religions' that splintered themselves from original Buddhism that elevate Buddha to godliness and worship him. So Buddhism is a religion technically due to that. But again, Siddhartha Gautama did not include god-belief in his philosophy.


If atheism is defined as believing in a god or gods, then by definition, Buddhists can not be atheists.


Buddhism as portrayed by the Buddha is atheistic.
What Buddha said is to Buddhism, as what Christ said is to Christianity.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
The following opinions on Buddhism are only my general knowledge and are probably wrong, but instead of looking anything up I thought I'd give my impressions and see how much that I've remembered from reading is actually right.

There is Mayana and Theravada - one is the great vehicle and the other the lesser vehicle (don't know which).
By greater or lesser I think that one is considered a direct path to enlightenment, the other is a more roundabout journey to enllightenment, integrating morality and such. (there may be vihayana too, I don't know what that is).

I think it is signiificant that one just gets on with getting you enlightened, 'here do these practices scientifically and you will see results' (any mediation based buddhism; vipassana - burmese, or zen - japanese, chinese), and the other tends to say, 'oh enlightenmnet's not really possible unil you've had many lifetimes, don't even bother'. That view seems contrary to what Buddha actually taught. He also never committed to the reincarnation thing one way or the other, it was a huge belief in the culture at the time though so he made use of it, but it's often said that these things (afterlife) may or may not exist, but what's important is the practice.
It also tends to be the kind of Buddhism that allows for lots of superstitious beliefs and ritual practices and myths to form, it is the 'culturally rich and colourful' version of Buddhism such as Tibetan.
I prefer the no-nonsense, scientific, practice-based version. They make no claims other than what you can confirm with your own body and mind.
It also has a great deal of reports about what to expect in the stages of insight (becoming enlgihtened). Some gets quite technical.
Zen buddhism lacks this detailed analysis and isn't too concerned about it; they just say - go sit.

edit on 8-12-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackcube
Let's pretend god exists.... Which god?

And after that the most important of question : WHY should I worship such god? Give me good reasons for me to do it. It's simple question and I never heard a good reason to do such thing.

Have you ever wondered about the possibility that just MAYBE the creator of the universe just MIGHT happen to know what is best for us?

Just something you may want to think about...


“The irony is that while God doesn’t need us but still wants us, we desperately need God but don’t really want Him most of the time.” ~ Francis Chan

“‎"Do you know that nothing you do in this life will ever matter, unless it is about loving God and loving the people he has made?” ~ Francis Chan

“Can you worship a God who isn't obligated to explain His actions to you? Could it be your arrogance that makes you think God owes you an explanation?” ~ Francis Chan

www.goodreads.com...

More Links:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Purpose of Your Life by Francis Chan



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Have you ever wondered about the possibility that just MAYBE the creator of the universe just MIGHT happen to know what is best for us?


Maybe it does.
But those claiming to speak for it certainly don't, they only know what's best for themselves, and it's in their interests to tell you what it wants.
No-one should just take what they say on faith.
How many have actual first-hand knowledge of what god wants that hasn't come through some intermediate party?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga

That question is completely meaningless, not only on itself, but also in regards to discussions. If you don't have free will, how can you make a choice regarding what you want or don't want? Think about it for a second..

There are two scenarios..

1) You don't have free will. In this case, whatever your answer, it was not you who chose it because your will is not free, thus, the question has no value since your 'want' does not exist.

2) You have free will. In this case, you already have it and whether you want it or not, you have to live with it. In this case, the question again has no value.


How these types of posts get stars is beyond me.


It's a philosophical question, you know the ones that are supposed to make you think, which it did, slightly.

For me it highlights just how absurd the idea is that 'free will' was given to us.

Its innate to some degree in a great many other species here on this rock as-well, no space ghost type creature required I'm afraid......



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seede

You continue to ignore the point of this discussion.



You continue to claim that creationists do not make fact based claims based purely on your particular interpretations, and I cannot tell if you're being naive or dishonest. Although I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

Here are a few links for you to mull over:-

Creation Science Movement

The Institue for Creation Research

The Center for Scientific Creation

Creation Science

Creation Scientists

And of course

Creation Museum

And then there's the attempts by creationists to put their 'beliefs' into science books, their attempts to exclude evolution in science class and their attempts to discredit valid verified scientific findings that contradict their interpretations of their holy scribbles, as you do below.......





I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It is not the creationists who claim that a monkey gene accidentally split some thousands of years ago and the end result is the human species. The only fact of this is that a gene can be split. Nothing more than that. No proof of an accident. No proof of evolution. No proof of thousands of years ago. And yet this fable is parroted about till it is accepted as fact by people such as yourself.



The irony of this post is just astounding, do you read what you type? You just made my point for me, you're making claims about evolution for no other reason whatsoever other than it contradicts your 'beliefs'.

Another creationist cliché, attempting to trash talk about science in a way that shows they know very very little about science. 'a theory is just a hypothesis' kind of thing.

Now to get back to the point I was making originally, those making the claim, any claim of any kind, theoretical, theological, hypothetical whatever, have the burden of proof. Otherwise nobody has any business listening to them.

This applies to not just theists and atheists, but everyone and everything. Attempting to shed the burden of proof after making such incredible claims says a lot about the strength of your 'belief'.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Kody27


Please don't get confused and start comparing science with religion. No they're not the same, one is based on bogey tales, the other is taken from direct observation. You can't have faith in something that you've directly observed because it's there. Faith is only required when you can't observe something but choose to believe it anyway.



I don't know why you quoted my post in yours, because from what you wrote, you did not even read mine.
What you said has nothing at all to do with what I wrote.


Which was-

No matter what your convictions are, whether they come from science or religion,

if you are both acting the same way, doing the same behaviors, then from an external point of view, there is little to no difference between you.




edit on 3-12-2012 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)


From an external point of view? Like whose, God's? So you're saying that no matter what you believe in, God sees your actions and judges you by them and not your beliefs? I'll take that any day, if an entity such as God were real.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kody27


From an external point of view? Like whose, God's? So you're saying that no matter what you believe in, God sees your actions and judges you by them and not your beliefs? I'll take that any day, if an entity such as God were real.



Wow, this is old, what made you bring this up?

Gods view...hahaha! No, I meant to anyone else who is not you..

Your behavior as can be observed by others- as opposed to the unobservable events which are happening in your head, and that only you experience.

The difference between psychology and behaviorism?

Two people do exactly the same behavior, but they may claim to be totally different because their inner motivations, beliefs, desires, reasonings, differ.

To the exterior world though, that internal difference is irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Kody27
 


If I remember correctly, that comment was specifically refering to my observation that sometimes atheists behave dogmatically- which is what makes them seem not very different from some theists.


Where you got the judgement from God thing, I have no idea. I am not a theist.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Sorry for a mini bump but I want to express my views on the matter.

Atheism is or isn't a religion depending on how you define atheism. As a fairly new term it has so many meanings it's hard to pinpoint what one means with the term. It gets thrown around a lot.

To me atheism the standpoint that we don't have proof and the current theories are so full of holes, inconsistencies and can be shot down rationally for us to believe in a god. However that does not mean that there is no god(s), just that currently nothing points to there being any.

Immediately if I think why would I not believe I come over many stumbling blocks. Well first and foremost I never did or had the need to. I was born to a very mildly Christian family, they didn't practice it but as a kid I was still exposed to the Bible and read it. I do remember somewhere in my teens I was honest, looked at the info I have gathered, noticing it was more of a storybook and difficult to believe in without lying to oneself. I was not really a believer to begin with, it was just a concept I knew of as a kid as I have read/heard of it and by that age I kind of noticed some flaws that put it on the backdrop. So I would say I was always a non believer. I don't like the term atheist for the exact same reason, so many stuff gets added to it for some reason. Belief in scientific theories become for some reason part of it, what has evolution got to do with believing in god? People where atheistic in nature before the theory even existed and were fine without it.

So on to my obvious complaints that I can muster up on the spot.

1) People pick and choose Bilbe or Quran verses. They explain certain parts where made for older ages and we don't have to believe everything. This seems too much of a thin red line case, who exactly decided what, where, when and to who is needed and not needed anymore. Human input was put too much into interpreting these claims. Some gets transported from the old texts, some gets left behind, people get different meanings from the save verses and all claim they have the right meaning. This shows that religion is not really that clear to any of the people and therefor hard to see a real unity or something supernatural that all people behave by one code.

2) Interpretations, translations, meaning of words as a whole. People created dictionaries and meaning of words, not the other way around. A good example is the word "gay" it changed from happy, joyful to meaning a person who is attracted to same sex persons. Word meanings change. Also there is this thing called lost in translation, surprisingly what gets lost is usually the meaning as words don't always carry one meaning and it's hard to find similar meanings in other languages. Thirdly humans themselves, subjective minds reading such texts have to give their own input if they translate or copy the text, mistakes get made. Add this together and there is no way the texts have remained the same. The meanings will have changed. People forget or mishear even simple things like "Let's meet at 2 o'clock" and make mistakes in 300 word texts. How can they keep such volumes of work mistake free is quite hard.

3) The old mental puzzles, what comes to mind immediately is the old and overused "Can god create a rock that heavy that he can't lift it?". Also the very nature of the Bible, why create a flood to kill everything if he is all powerful and could simply fix the problem with a "thought". Why sending his own self as Christ to die at the cross as salvation, it does not make sense. He is again god, couldn't he simply make it ok without having to resort to such "only way" methods.

4) Falling to sin. This concept is lost to me. The story goes that humans had free will and decided to fall into sin. Looking at a programmers aspect of this it does not make sense. "Free will" does not mean anything it is a word pair. God had to create an entity called "Free will" and define the meaning. He had to program what it means, what percentage one choice is taken, what percentage other etc. What I am trying to say he basically created a faulty program as he defined what free will is (he made everything after all) and us falling into sin is his doing as he was the creator of the possible output "free will" and humans. Even if he made us choose 50% 50% he still is responsible as he been fully aware that 50% that we chose sin.

5) The severity of hell is totally lost on me. Even Hitler wouldn't deserve 100,000,000 billion years of torture and it's eternal.

6) The ability to bend the commandments. Do not steal, lets go for the most idiotically out of the box example to illustrate this. If I took a murderers gun without his permission, lets say he was going to rob a shop and I took it off his car hood. That would be considered stealing as I took without permission and I would burn for eternity in hell for that.

I'm running out of characters so I will end my explanation here. I didn't get far explaining at all sadly.
edit on 24-7-2013 by Scrap because: Spacing, more readable now





top topics
 
15
<< 33  34  35   >>

log in

join