Converting

[dharveymi]

Taoism - a religion developed from Taoist philosophy and folk and Buddhist religion and concerned with obtaining long life and good fortune often by magical means, from Merriam Webster.

To do no evil;

To cultivate good;

To purify one's mind:

This is the teaching of the Buddhas.

--The Dhammapada

These do not sound like atheism to me.

 

[Pah]

Taoism - a religion developed from Taoist philosophy and folk and Buddhist religion and concerned with obtaining long life and good fortune often by magical means, from Merriam Webster.

To do no evil;

To cultivate good;

To purify one's mind:

This is the teaching of the Buddhas.

--The Dhammapada

These do not sound like atheism to me.

I can't decide whether you just don't know anything about atheism or are totally biased against it.

Those are some of the things that atheists do

 

[Ardhanariswar]

Taoism - a religion developed from Taoist philosophy and folk and Buddhist religion and concerned with obtaining long life and good fortune often by magical means, from Merriam Webster.

To do no evil;

To cultivate good;

To purify one's mind:

This is the teaching of the Buddhas.

--The Dhammapada

These do not sound like atheism to me.

athiesm is a believe that there is no higher power rite? i can see where you are right but they technically dont believe in a higher power unless if you can call that higher power a higher cause to do good in life in the world.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

There is nothing in atheistic Taoism or Buddhism about a higher sentient being who behaves in a particular manner and who has an interest in the human race/influences our lives/performs miracles/created the universe. Atheism = not believing in said higher being. Therefore, some forms of Taoism and Buddhism are atheistic. As I said earlier the term atheist does not describe someone's worldview, just as theist does not describe someone's worldview (there is a big difference between Calvinists, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Gnostics).

Does that make sense, dharveymi?

 

[dharveymi]

"Buddha accepted the basic Hindu doctrines of reincarnation and karma, as well as the notion that the ultimate goal of the religious life is to escape the cycle of death and rebirth."

A belief in the afterlife does not sound like atheism.

 

[anders]

"A belief in the afterlife" does not need a god. The Buddhist view of reincarnation is more like it is a natural law: you reap the effects of the karma you sow. There is no need for example for a Superior Being to judge you.

 

[dharveymi]

But don't atheists reject any belief in the supernatural? Reincarnation is certainly supernatural, requiring faith.

 

[anders]

Atheists tend to deny the existence of a supernatural being. I also suppose that people who believe in reincarnatioon consider it a natural process--I repeat "The Buddhist view of reincarnation is more like it is a natural law". Naturally, it requires faith, like anything else that concerns religion.

 

[dharveymi]

Since reincarnation does require some bit of faith, the same arguements atheists use against Christians; i.e., they believe in fairy-tales, etc., would apply. What scientific or other types of evidence is there for reincarnation? If there is not such evidence, are you no better than those believe in the Bible?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I would not say I am "better than those who believe in the Bible".

Buddhists believe in an afterlife, but deny the existence of God, so they are atheists as well as Buddhists (just as you are a theist as well as a Christian). I think the problem here, dharveymi, is that many atheists also do not beleive in anything supernatural....but you have to remember, the word atheism does not mean not believing in anything supernatural--it simply means not beleiving in God. Buddhists and Taoists do not believe in God, so they are athesits (not all of them though).

 

[dharveymi]

I understand what you are saying about different kinds of atheism, and I think it is very candid of you to say that there is little difference between those atheists that believe in the supernatural and theists, if that is what you are saying.

I would like to talk about those athiests that do not believe in the supernatural. Would you accept that there are things that cannot be explained, proven, tested, etc.?

If you would, doesn't it require a measure of faith to believe that there is a "naturalistic" explanation for those things, but that no one has thought of the explanation yet?

And, if that is true, than doesn't that place them in the same catagory as those atheists that believe in the supernatural, theists, and those that believe in fairy tales?

 

[Ceridwen018]

dharveymi,

I personally do not believe in the supernatural. I can accept that there are things which we do not know and things which can't be proven. My thoughts are that everything has the potential of being discovered and proven as we advance in our technology.

It does require a certain type of faith to believe that there are naturalistic explanations for everything, however, this is different than the type of faith required to believe there are supernatural explanations. You see, everything we know today, and everything which has been proven has acheived that status through natural explanation. Nothing which is recognized today has been 'proven' using supernatural laws, in fact, we don't even have supernatural laws because the 'supernatural world' cannot be perceived by our five senses...which makes you wonder where the idea came for it at all.

To trust that the holes in our knowledge will be filled by natural means is to not so much have 'faith', but to use logic. Because everything so far has been proven using natural explanation, and because we have no definitive evidence that the supernatural world even exists, we can logically conclude that naturalistic means will continue to dominate.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with what Ceridwen said.

I would like to talk about those athiests that do not believe in the supernatural. Would you accept that there are things that cannot be explained, proven, tested, etc.?

There are some things that cannot be explained right now, but everything has the potential to be explained.

If you would, doesn't it require a measure of faith to believe that there is a "naturalistic" explanation for those things, but that no one has thought of the explanation yet?

It does not require a measure of faith, just an objective look at the facts. As Ceridwen said, there has never been a proven "supernatural" explaination for anything. Proposed supernatural explainations have been disproven time and again. Natural explainations have not only been upheld time and again, but they give us a better understanding of our world and lead to even more natural explainations.

And, if that is true, than doesn't that place them in the same catagory as those atheists that believe in the supernatural, theists, and those that believe in fairy tales?

No--atheists with a naturalistic worldview are in a seperate category because they require evidence.

I am not sure theists and fairy-tale beleivers could be lumped into the same category....though the fact that you can neither disprove the existence of goblins, nor can you disprove the existence of God seems to be reason enough for both groups to believe with conviction...

 

[dharveymi]

You are blinded by your own disbelief. To say that nothing that has been proven, has been proven using a supernatural explanation, is just my point. If it has only a supernatural explanation, it can't be proven, by definition. (But it is possible that just because it has a naturalistic explanation, that that explanation is wrong) But, to say that because there is no evidence for the supernatural just because there has been nothing proven to have a supernatural explanation is to wonder arround with blinders on. I'll ask again:

Do you believe that there are things that defy explanation, proof, test, etc.? (You seem to be saying that there is a time element. Unexplained things quickly are shown to have a naturalistic explanation, so that those things that remain have just not been around long enough to be explained. So I will ask another question

Do you believe that there are things that defy explanation, proof, test, etc. for a long time?

Then after you answer, you can ask yourself my other questions about faith. (It hurts, doesn't it?)

 

[Pah]

You are blinded by your own disbelief. To say that nothing that has been proven, has been proven using a supernatural explanation, is just my point. If it has only a supernatural explanation, it can't be proven, by definition. (But it is possible that just because it has a naturalistic explanation, that that explanation is wrong) But, to say that because there is no evidence for the supernatural just because there has been nothing proven to have a supernatural explanation is to wonder arround with blinders on.

Let me be more blunt. - the supernatural is not true becuase there is no proof of it's existence. There is evidence that can be construed to be leading to proof but evidence does not confirm truth by itself. Only faith can make the leap into the imaginary and make it "real".

I'll ask again:

Do you believe that there are things that defy explanation, proof, test, etc.? (You seem to be saying that there is a time element. Unexplained things quickly are shown to have a naturalistic explanation, so that those things that remain have just not been around long enough to be explained. So I will ask another question

Do you believe that there are things that defy explanation, proof, test, etc. for a long time?

Yes. And some maybe never be known.

Then after you answer, you can ask yourself my other questions about faith. (It hurts, doesn't it?)

How is faith affected? That is a rhetorical question

 

[dharveymi]

I was trained as a mathematician, so I can talk about "proof". In its strictest sense, you have no proof for many of the things that you believe. I would dare to say most of the things that you believe cannot be "proven" in the strictest sense of the word. So don't be so smug.

Now back to the other question. Since there are things that defy explanation, doesn't it require just as much faith to believe that they have an unknown naturalistic explaination as to believe that they have a supernatural explanation? I think the answer is obvious, I understand that you have a problem with the word faith, so insert trust or whatever word that doesn't offend you, but the concept is the same. You decide who to trust just like I do. You have just decided to trust someone else, other than that, you are exactly like me and adherents to any other religion.

 

[Pah]

I was trained as a mathematician, so I can talk about "proof". In its strictest sense, you have no proof for many of the things that you believe. I would dare to say most of the things that you believe cannot be "proven" in the strictest sense of the word. So don't be so smug.

Now back to the other question. Since there are things that defy explanation, doesn't it require just as much faith to believe that they have an unknown naturalistic explaination as to believe that they have a supernatural explanation? I think the answer is obvious, I understand that you have a problem with the word faith, so insert trust or whatever word that doesn't offend you, but the concept is the same. You decide who to trust just like I do. You have just decided to trust someone else, other than that, you are exactly like me and adherents to any other religion.

I speak for myself!! It does not require faith to place those unanswered questions of science in a "box" labled "To Be Determined Later". If and when those questions are resolved I will take them out and "carry on"; if not, they remain in the "box" and I will "carry on".

I h-a-v-e no faith. Further, I have no "spirituality". I find attention to a supernatural god akin to a love of "superhero" comic books.

This is not debatable - it is what constitutes me and I would thank you not to try and convince me otherwise. The purpose of this forum is twofold. One, to discuss topics of mutuallity between atheists and two, to educate non-atheists about what we hold as individuals and as a group.

I have educated you as to my life and some of it will find resonance amongst other atheists but nothing in here is for debate. If you wish to debate and "prove" us wrong, you should start another thread in another forum.

 

[dharveymi]

Classic!

 

[Pah]

Classic!

Please. For the last time, take your comments to another forum

 

[dharveymi]

My intention is not debate, but just to understand, but apparently I am wholly unable to follow the reasoning which leads to this kind of discussion.