What religion are you?

[DireWolfSpirit]

I think the reason there is some confusion over Buddhism is that

there are multiple schools of thought under the umbrella and multiple splinter groups branching yet again off the various schools.

Some Buddhist do not have the Godhead as part of their belief ,

so many describe that

practice of Buddhism as a philosophy.

A philosophy that lacks a personal God.

To my way of understanding it , you could be Buddhist and either a atheist or a theist,

depending on whether you incorporate a God into your beliefs.

Eastern thought can be strikingly different than what westerners are accustomed to , so

some have difficulty fitting it into the box or label they preconceive.

Also I'll add this snippet from Wiki,

that shows an example of agnostic thought within Hindu philosophy-

Throughout the history of Hinduism there has been a strong tradition of philosophic speculation and skepticism.[33][34]

The Rig Veda takes an agnostic view on the fundamental question of how the universe and the gods were created. Nasadiya Sukta (Creation Hymn) in the tenth chapter of the Rig Veda says:[35][36][37]

Who really knows?

Who will here proclaim it?

Whence was it produced? Whence is this creation?

The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.

Who then knows whence it has arisen?

I think it shows how it can be quite incorrect to

prescribe blanket statements about groups when we know

there's so much diverse thought and philosophy under various

umbrellas.

[The Anti-Targ]

Do atheists teach that the afterlife doesn't exist?

I don't know, you'd have to ask atheists.

If Buddha was silent, not speaking or teaching about God, then he is being atheistic - it is after all, not theism. It's merely not necessarily "strong atheism." Right?

I disagree that it is teaching atheism as a Buddhist truth. In the common understanding of atheism today, at least as I understand it, proclaiming atheism is a positive affirmation of the non-existence of a god or gods. That is not what Buddha taught, so calling Buddha's teachings atheist might be accurate under a certain definition of the word, but according to today's lay person's understanding of the word Buddha was not atheist in His teachings.

[The Anti-Targ]

Non-theistic and atheistic are the same thing.

I don't want to argue semantics on these terms. All I'm saying is that the core of Buddhism (that is the teachings of Buddha) does not teach atheism, and that one can't automatically extrapolate atheism as a foundational teaching from the fact that the teachings are pretty silent on the subject.

I think the reason there is some confusion over Buddhism is that

there are multiple schools of thought under the umbrella and multiple splinter groups branching yet again off the various schools.

Some Buddhist do not have the Godhead as part of their belief ,

so many describe that

practice of Buddhism as a philosophy.

A philosophy that lacks a personal God.

To my way of understanding it , you could be Buddhist and either a atheist or a theist,

depending on whether you incorporate a God into your beliefs.

Eastern thought can be strikingly different than what westerners are accustomed to , so

some have difficulty fitting it into the box or label they preconceive.

Also I'll add this snippet from Wiki,

that shows an example of agnostic thought within Hindu philosophy-

I think it shows how it can be quite incorrect to

prescribe blanket statements about groups when we know

there's so much diverse thought and philosophy under various

umbrellas.

The mere fact of utterly incompatible theological points of view under the umbrella of Buddhism, and cetain other religions, suggests something has been lost in the mists of time, or lost in translation. My understanding of Buddhism is that its foundation is monotheism, and my understanding of Hinduism is the same. Anything else, IMO, is embellishment based on the musings and interpretations of countless flawed mortal minds over the centuries, and in the case of Hinduism millennia.

[Wise Fool]

I don't know, you'd have to ask atheists.

I disagree that it is teaching atheism as a Buddhist truth. In the common understanding of atheism today, at least as I understand it, proclaiming atheism is a positive affirmation of the non-existence of a god or gods. That is not what Buddha taught, so calling Buddha's teachings atheist might be accurate under a certain definition of the word, but according to today's lay person's understanding of the word Buddha was not atheist in His teachings.

If by "certain definition of the word" you mean, the actual definition, then yes. Similarly, "lay person's understanding of the word" would mean, not the actual definition of atheism. I mean, if we're going to just accept what uninformed people think about colloquial terms as true, then Edward Snowden is the guy in charge of Wikileaks.

[Gears of the Beast]

There is no atheist belief system/doctrine. A skeptic will tell you there's no reason to believe in an afterlife and will probably give you many reasons why there likely is no afterlife but an atheist can believe in an afterlife...and all manner of nonsense, except for gods.

I don't want to argue semantics on these terms. All I'm saying is that the core of Buddhism (that is the teachings of Buddha) does not teach atheism, and that one can't automatically extrapolate atheism as a foundational teaching from the fact that the teachings are pretty silent on the subject.

Buddhism doesn't teach non theism either so if that's your reason for using 'non theistic' instead of 'atheistic' then it doesn't make much sense. Using the label doesn't necessitate that atheism is a foundation teaching, it just means the religion lacks a god concept/god worship. Atheism is used in the same way that you were using 'non theistic', it's either theistic or atheistic.

[The Anti-Targ]

There is no atheist belief system/doctrine. A skeptic will tell you there's no reason to believe in an afterlife and will probably give you many reasons why there likely is no afterlife but an atheist can believe in an afterlife...and all manner of nonsense, except for gods.

Buddhism doesn't teach non theism either so if that's your reason for using 'non theistic' instead of 'atheistic' then it doesn't make much sense. Using the label doesn't necessitate that atheism is a foundation teaching, it just means the religion lacks a god concept/god worship. Atheism is used in the same way that you were using 'non theistic', it's either theistic or atheistic.

I agree, Buddhism doesn't teach non-theism or atheism. So I misused the term, accepted. Which is why in my previous post I explained what I meant.

My theological view is that Buddha was basically the reformer of Hinduism, as Jesus was the reformer of Judaism. Krishna directly taught monotheism, Buddha did not abrogate the Hindu teachings on that subject. Hence the central God concept in Hinduism is applicable to Buddhism. People who view Buddhism and Hinduism as theologically unconnected may of course have a different view. My view is that all the religions have the same Divine origin, hence they are all interconnected and share fundamental commonalities, like monotheism.

If by "certain definition of the word" you mean, the actual definition, then yes. Similarly, "lay person's understanding of the word" would mean, not the actual definition of atheism. I mean, if we're going to just accept what uninformed people think about colloquial terms as true, then Edward Snowden is the guy in charge of Wikileaks.

Sure, when conversing among the theologically literate. But when you are conversing among the masses then you have to be aware of how a word will be interpreted. If that understanding is likely to mislead then it is best to write or speak in words of one syllable to ensure there is no misunderstanding.

[Wise Fool]

Grag hear of sky-man. Grag not think sky-man is. But Grag not know for sure!

[Weeping Sore]

Grag you ignorant slut.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I don't want to argue semantics on these terms. All I'm saying is that the core of Buddhism (that is the teachings of Buddha) does not teach atheism, and that one can't automatically extrapolate atheism as a foundational teaching from the fact that the teachings are pretty silent on the subject.

The mere fact of utterly incompatible theological points of view under the umbrella of Buddhism, and cetain other religions, suggests something has been lost in the mists of time, or lost in translation. My understanding of Buddhism is that its foundation is monotheism, and my understanding of Hinduism is the same. Anything else, IMO, is embellishment based on the musings and interpretations of countless flawed mortal minds over the centuries, and in the case of Hinduism millennia.

This seems like a 'no true scotsman'. Just because you can trace a religion back to something earlier doesn't make the older one more authentic or correct, and doesn't make the later interpretations 'flawed.' You seem to be denying the religious practice of anyone who considers themself to be an atheist buddhist or hindu.

And atheism isn't an affirmative proclamation. It's often a lack of a belief that others have.

[Sci-2]

Grag you ignorant slut.

SNL ref - nice!

[Ramsay Gimp]

SNL ref - nice!

I thought it was from the office? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv9rZdjv4Mo

[The King in Black]

Okay my knowldege is basically worth nothing about this, but from what I hear the Vedic proto-Hindu religion absorbed various Indian religions to become Hinduism, which later gave birth to Jainism, Buddhism, and much later Sikhism.These included belief systems that were monotheist, polytheist and atheist. So technically , you can be an atheist Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Sikh. I have met collegues who were Hindu and Sikh and both claimed they don't believe in God, but their religion had no problem with it

[DireWolfSpirit]

Monotheism is really the later development or "Johnny come lately"

belief anyways. So I agree with larrytheimp's post.

Whether it's India, Rome, Egypt, Babylonian or the ancient Caananites,

we see earlier examples of beliefs in pantheons/polytheism.

The archeological artifacts from the ancient Levant show a tradition of

worship to the God El along with Goddess Asherah for instance.

Asherah (/ˈæʃərə/; Ugaritic: 𐎀𐎘𐎗𐎚 : 'ṯrt; Hebrew: אֲשֵׁרָה‎), in Semitic mythology, is a mother goddess who appears in a number of ancient sources. She appears in Akkadian writings by the name of Ashratum/Ashratu, and in Hittite as Asherdu(s) or Ashertu(s) or Aserdu(s) or Asertu(s). Asherah is generally considered identical with the Ugaritic goddess ʼAṯirat.

Asherah is identified as the consort of the Sumerian god Anu and Ugaritic El,[1] the oldest deities of their respective pantheons.[2][3] This role gave her a similarly high rank in the Ugaritic pantheon.[4] The name Dione, which like 'Elat means "Goddess", is clearly associated with Asherah in the Phoenician History of Sanchuniathon, because the same common epithet ('Elat) of "the Goddess par excellence" was used to describe her at Ugarit.[5] The Book of Jeremiah, written circa 628 BC, possibly refers to Asherah when it uses the title "Queen of Heaven",

[Wicked Woodpecker of West]

Spiritual people and agnostics can both qualify as atheists.

Technically yes. But in social perception atheists are materialist scientists not some no-God spirit talking shamans.

So agnostics and spiritualists just don't want to be labeled as ones.

Guys, secular just means favouring no religion over another. Secular doesn't mean atheist any more than catholic means atheist.

Therefore secularity is impossibility. Social order demands to have philosophical background for its laws, or it turns into chaos. And philosophy means also metaphysics. Sooner or later conflict arises. Which usually means that secular country turns into atheistic one, not necessarily in active fight with religions, but through building it laws around atheistic philosophies.

This also holds to some extent on a local level, not only as a broad historical development: The most liberal, prosperous and non-religious countries today are almost all countries that used to be quite religious (mostly protestant) until the early 20th century or so: (north)western Europe and the US.

Ah, we Catholics knew all those years before than Luter's rebellion cannot end well. ;)

Right. Buddhism, or at least some forms of Buddhism can be seen as an atheistic religion for example.

Indeed. Although I prefer to say that atheism is a specific form of pantheism ;)

Why is Denmark happy? It may be because it is a secular liberal utopia with universal health care. (liberal in the US sense of the word.)

If so, Denmark is a good argument for educated liberals.

It may also be because it is ethnically homogenous to a degree that is very hard to understand if you’re not from there. It’s one big family. Therefore, kinship altruism predicts that Denmark should display large levels of trust. In particular, you can run a welfare state on this population.

If so, Denmark is a good argument for anti-immigration politics and general xenophobia.

Well you could always unite those camps. I mean educated liberals before WWII saw nothing wrong in ethnic isolationism.

Maybe what you need is secular, liberal, isolationist utopia with universal health care and xenophobic immigration politics. Something like Hermea from Pathfinder RPG Setting.

If Buddha was silent, not speaking or teaching about God, then he is being atheistic - it is after all, not theism.

I would say that's apatheism - treating problem of Sentient Absolute as non-important.

And atheism isn't an affirmative proclamation. It's often a lack of a belief that others have.

Indeed. I would say atheist - theist line without adding axis of gnostic - agnostic would usually leads to some misunderstandings.

The archeological artifacts from the ancient Levant show a tradition of

worship to the God El along with Goddess Asherah for instance.

Yeah but weren't "el" just a word for god or spiritual being. Like rather neutral noun?

It's like saying Odin and Jahwe are both called "god" by their English-speaking worshippers so they are probably the same?

[Gears of the Beast]

Technically yes. But in social perception atheists are materialist scientists not some no-God spirit talking shamans.

So agnostics and spiritualists just don't want to be labeled as ones.

Interesting generalisation, I'm sure the agnostics and spiritualists can speak for themselves. BTW I'm agnostic (and I believe the vast majority of professed atheists are) but I prefer the label atheist.

[DireWolfSpirit]

@Wickedwoodpecker,

_El_, Asherah, Baal, are but 3 of a pantheon of Canaanite gods that precede

monotheism belief tradition.

http://youtu.be/av6vNB42CN0

Also check (google) the 8th B.C.E. archaeological site

at Kuntillet Ajrud, Palestine for artifacts that

show us some of the early figurines, artifacts and

epitaphs of that cultures tradition/worship/beliefs.

Basically as the Yale professor (Hayes) mentions in the short video,

Most scholars would say _El_ became the Hebrew God,

transitioning from the Canaanite pantheon to

monotheism. It wouldn't make any sense to

argue that monotheism was the foundation and these polytheism

traditions are flawed offshoots. Monotheism is the later tradition.

And i'm not just referring to Canaan because were all aware of the

belief in ancient gods from Egypt, Greece, Roman, Indus Valley, Babylonia, etc.

Indeed it's surprising to me that monotheism developed at all with

that kind of competition.