Atheists and Abstracts

[qaz]

buddhism doesn't believe in deities because they are created like humans. they're temporal. they don't believe in a deity apart from self, either. so they do believe that there is something about self that is permanent and eternal. some atheists do not believe that.

i use the term self vs selves.

buddha taught exactly the opposite of what you just wrote.
the very opposite.

 

[Fool]

buddha taught exactly the opposite of what you just wrote.
the very opposite.

buddha taught that deities are permanent? that they should be worshiped? that there was no eternal thing?

can you give me a reference?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

this is a learning process for me. I realize some of the things I inquire about seem foolish but I actually learn something occasionally.

the only idea that I can come up with that might be relevant is that we are more questioning than just a believer alone.

believers might just accept it without explanation because someone in authority told them so; or they've been conditioned to just accept authority.

An atheist would be more open to questioning; so I presume that acceptance isn't readily given; without a personal experience for themselves, or plenty of evidence from numerous and unbiased witnesses.

If I understand you correct, that makes sense. I would only question that if an abstract was made concrete such as god being an actual spirit or being rather than an experience, inner knowledge, and reflection. Then a believer would just accept on authority love/god exists without needing to experience it while an atheist would question and learn from experience to know love/god exists.

I only see this makes sense if there was something concrete. I'm sure theists believe love exists only when they experienced it first. A lot of theists say "god answered my prayers" or "god gave me a blessing". They confirm their knowledge of god by first having the experience they perceive they have from him. So, basically the abstract concepts coming from an "material" god (their view) can be only exist if experienced by god.Without god, no abstract concepts can exist.

Atheist (non-deity believers), on the other hand, do not need a source nor depend on a source in order to know love exist. For example, I never experience extreme gratitude because I wasn't raised that gratitude was an abstract concept but something that can only be given or defined when an there is an action. So, "I love you" would not be gratitude or unconditional love (or abstract concept of affection for someone) would not exist unless there is an action behind it.

Theists have an easier time seeing abstract concepts as concrete because they personify it. I would assume some of us atheist do not accept it readily (as in your OP question) as theist because some of us only see concepts as concepts and concepts only exist through experience. Theist need concrete source to feel conceptual experiences. Some atheist do not need a concrete source to feel conceptual experiences.

That's the only difference I see. It depends on the theist (some believe god is everything and not concrete at all) or the atheist (some of us don't see god as a being but something developed from the mind and lived out).

Sorry for the long answer. I do thing this addresses what you're saying, though.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

buddha taught that deities are permanent? that they should be worshiped? that there was no eternal thing?

can you give me a reference?

You're right. Buddhism teaches that everything is changing, that gods are aspects of the human psyche, everything is part of cause and effect, and our practices like meditation lets us understand that so we see our "real" self that has no attachment to this world of suffering (birth/age/sickness/death) thereby full understanding/enlightenment and end of the rebirth process.

Edit: Buddhist Cliff Notes (Pun intended)

 

[qaz]

buddha taught that deities are permanent? that they should be worshiped? that there was no eternal thing?

can you give me a reference?

that was yet an outdated question in India, by buddha's time.
he did much more than rejecting the individuations/gods , he denied the brahman itself.indeed, i was referring to your conjectures about what you call "the self", and its relationship with time, ego and death.


spinoza instead was a total materialist and a rationalist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would an atheist have a harder time understanding, accepting, and pursuing an abstract because of lack of evidence and/or experience?

From where I sit, it's the theists who generally have a harder time with abstractions... what with having to anthropomorphize every and concretize abstract concepts all the time.

What is a god but a way for someone to relate to an abstraction?

 

[Fool]

that was yet an outdated question in India, by buddha's time.
i was referring to your conjectures about what you call "the self", and its relationship with time, ego and death.


spinoza instead was a total materialist and a rationalist.

buddhism doesn't discount matter. at least some forms don't. and it definitely doesn't discount consciousness, or mind.

 

[qaz]

buddhism doesn't discount matter. at least some forms don't. and it definitely doesn't discount consciousness, or mind.

buddhism doesn't care about it.
but if you want to stress this point, actually yes, it discounts primarly consciousness. just it's a marginal issue.

 

[Fool]

buddhism doesn't care about it.
but if you want to stress this point, actually yes, it discounts primarly consciousness. just it's a marginal issue.

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere”

 

[SabahTheLoner]

Would an atheist have a harder time understanding, accepting, and pursuing an abstract because of lack of evidence and/or experience?

A purely materialistic or physicalist atheist might. Spiritual or agnostic atheists would be a little more understanding.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Historically it has been theists that have explored abstracts and the pursuit of science; so why do you suppose atheists might believe theists to be disillusioned?

You are going to say that in light of the field of physics being the most atheists populated field of science and that is nothing but abstracts. Mathematics and and areas of philosophy have always been populated by very secular minded individuals and it is an area that is more fitting for an atheist than any religious individual. Look at the fact that atheism was never a cool thing and outing yourself as one was extremely dangerous. My favorite philosophers like al-Ma'arri lived under threat of death for much of their lives.

 

[qaz]

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere”

seriously? that news story? that source? read the Samyutta Nikaya, instead. you will see that "consciousness" in buddhism is maya, illusion, pain. i will copy here just an introductory passage
(When delight and existence are exhausted When perception and consciousness are both destroyed When feelings cease and are appeased — thus, O friend, Do I know for them that live Deliverance, freedom, detachment.)

(1.2)

"And what, monks, is consciousness?
"Monks, there are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness. From the arising of 'name-and-form' comes the arising of consciousness; from the ceasing of name-and-form, is the ceasing of consciousness; and the path leading to the ceasing of consciousness is this Noble Eightfold Path, to wit: Right Views... Right Concentration.
"That pleasure, that happiness which arises because of consciousness — that is the satisfaction which is in consciousness. In so far as consciousness is impermanent, fraught with suffering, and liable to change, this is the misery that is in consciousness. That restraint of desire and lust, that putting away of desire and lust which are in consciousness, that is the escape from consciousness.
"Now whatsoever recluses or brahmans, monks, by thus fully understanding consciousness, its arising, its ceasing, and the path leading to its ceasing; by thus fully understanding the satisfaction, the misery, that is in consciousness and the escape from consciousness, are treading towards the disgust for, the detachment from and the cessation of consciousness, they are rightly treading. They that are rightly treading, are firm grounded in this Norm and Discipline.
"And whatsoever recluses and brahmans, monks, by thus fully understanding consciousness, its arising, its ceasing, and the path leading to its ceasing, by thus fully understanding the satisfaction, the misery and the escape from consciousness are liberated without grasping, due to their disgust for, detachment from, and cessation of consciousness — they are truly liberated. They that are truly liberated, are 'accomplished,' and to them that are 'accomplished,' there is no whirling round for purposes of designation.

22.57

 

[LuisDantas]

its no game. it just historically that theists have been on the leading edge of most research in all sciences. even einstein wasn't an atheist. he was an advocate for buddhism; which isn't exactly a dyed in the wool atheist.

All of that is... highly questionable, let's say.

I stand unconvinced that theism as it is now understood has much of a historical existence. Until perhaps the Industrial Revolution people did not often have the luxury to take refuge into vanity beliefs.

Current, proud theism is very much an innovation, at least in the huge percentages that we have now.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Leading neuroscientists and Buddhists agree: “Consciousness is everywhere”

Keep in mind that such phenomenon and tactile sensations still remain empty. As the article mentioned.

 

[ChristineM]

its no game. it just historically that theists have been on the leading edge of most research in all sciences. even einstein wasn't an atheist. he was an advocate for buddhism; which isn't exactly a dyed in the wool atheist.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Albert Einstein.

. . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.
Albert Einstein



Note that the quote

”The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. ... If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

Although generally attributed to Einstein by people attempting to tie him to religious beliefs was not actually spoken by Einstein

Here's a wiki on an attempt to get to the source of the claim, which has failed.

Talk:Buddhism and science - Wikipedia

 

[Willamena]

Would an atheist have a harder time understanding, accepting, and pursuing an abstract because of lack of evidence and/or experience?

No.

 

[Fool]

Keep in mind that such phenomenon and tactile sensations still remain empty. As the article mentioned.

OK, so does that mean that mind can take two states? latent and active?

 

[Fool]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
Albert Einstein.

. . . I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.
Albert Einstein



Note that the quote

”The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. ... If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism.”

Although generally attributed to Einstein by people attempting to tie him to religious beliefs was not actually spoken by Einstein

Here's a wiki on an attempt to get to the source of the claim, which has failed.

Talk:Buddhism and science - Wikipedia

yes, but believing in a personal god isn't a part of buddhist theology. the only exception would be the non-self as a temporal deity, or maya, or manifestation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

OK, so does that mean that mind can take two states? latent and active?

Better put in fluid terms relating with periods of stability and instability.

 

[Fool]

Better put in fluid terms relating with periods of stability and instability.

so when unstable it is like genesis 1:2??

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.