I see no value in atheism

[Ben Dhyan]

Let's start with the absolute basics:

1. Theist: believes in the existence of gods
2. Atheist (weak atheist): doesn't believe in the existence of gods
3. Atheist (strong atheist): doesn't believe in the existence of gods and also believes gods don't exist

Do you understand that both 1 and 3 believes but number 2 doesn't believe? Do you see the difference between having a belief and not having a belief?

But you deceive yourself....."atheists believe that gods do not exist"....and ..'atheists don't believe in gods"....amounts to the same thing!

 

[ArtieE]

The meaning of a word changes and evolves over time to reflect it's most common or popular usage.

And the most common or popular usage is: "The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist." About.com Atheism.

I think calling a baby an atheist would seem a bit odd to just about anyone, regardless of which definition of atheist they're using.

"Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[42]" Wikipedia

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Vastly untrue, have you not heard of spiritual nursing? There are many PhD level nurses who are also doctors of theology. And nursing ow incorporates spirituality into the paradigm of nursing. Dr. Barbara Dossey is one and there is Dr. Sweeney in Scotland, among others. Dr. Dossey current theory is widely accepted and used by multiple schools of nursing throughout the country.

That is still stuff of the world, my kingdom is not of this world....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. When one make a claim here, it is generally accepted that one can substantiate that, as I just did with my last post about nursing.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric...ask outhouse...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Pardon me, but my statement is not untrue, you are free to beleive it is not but that is your opinion, just as mine is mine. Your posts seem to intimate a rather closed mind to me not open to any other view.

Not closed, not open...my religious practice is non-dualist...the cessation of thought processes which serve to interpret the bodies perceptions of reality, to realize non-conceptually pure existence...

 

[ArtieE]

But you deceive yourself....."atheists believe that gods do not exist"....and ..'atheists don't believe in gods"....amounts to the same thing!

Of course not. Ask two people the same question: Do you believe gods exist?

Answer:

Person 1: "No I don't believe gods exist, nor do I believe gods don't exist. I'm undecided, I haven't made up my mind, I have no opinion one way or the other."

Person 2: "I have decided, I have made up my mind. I believe gods don't exist."

Do you really not see the difference?

 

[Quagmire]

And the most common or popular usage is: "The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made - an atheist is any person who is not a theist." About.com Atheism."Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas.

You're quoting a self-described "agnosticism/atheism expert" who's only credentials seems to be an undeclared and ambiguous MA. (at least, I wasn't able to find out what his credentials are other than that he has an MA in something or other). From what I can tell, he's just another minor media personality riding the current wave of anti-religious popularity.

I posted these earlier: I see no value in atheism | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com

I see no value in atheism | Page 6 | ReligiousForums.com

I would call these more reliable sources.

As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[42]" Wikipedia

Why should we care what he said?

 

[outhouse]

Do you really not see the difference?

Not sure he knows the difference between implicit and explicit atheism either.

But is not Person 1: agnostic?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Person 1: "No I don't believe gods exist, nor do I believe gods don't exist. I'm undecided, I haven't made up my mind, I have no opinion one way or the other."

Still playing mind games on yourself...silly...in this case...it is not atheism, nor is theism, it's both....its cognitive dissonance....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not sure he knows the difference between implicit and explicit atheism either.

But is not Person 1: agnostic?

Person 1 is an implicit agnostic-explicit-theist-atheist...

 

[psychoslice]

I feel that when someone says they don't find value in atheism, what they really are saying is, I don't feel safe not believing in a god, I need something to cling to to make me feel safe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I feel that when someone says they don't find value in atheism, what they really are saying is, I don't feel safe not believing in a god, I need something to cling to to make me feel safe.

Depends on your understanding of what the concept of God is....if for example we consider Brahman...there is nothing else in existence, that's the starting point, how could anyone not accept absolute existence.... The name of absolute existence is not important, it can be called Nirvana, Tao, God, etc,...it is the one and same reality that is represented by these labels. So it is not a matter of clinging to anything, it's about letting go of all conceptual thoughts as to what is represented by 'God', and realize it directly...all else is vanity...

 

[outhouse]

.... The name of absolute existence is not important

True.

But the trouble starts when one starts attributing anything to the concepts

 

[psychoslice]

Depends on your understanding of what the concept of God is....if for example we consider Brahman...there is nothing else in existence, that's the starting point, how could anyone not accept absolute existence.... The name of absolute existence is not important, it can be called Nirvana, Tao, God, etc,...it is the one and same reality that is represented by these labels. So it is not a matter of clinging to anything, it's about letting go of all conceptual thoughts as to what is represented by 'God', and realize it directly...all else is vanity...

Yes you right, and that is how I see it also, but I think when one see's what is called god in that sense, then one doesn't cling to the concept of that god, because we are already one in the God, so clinging will only take us away from the oneness, we then will be in duality, us and god separate, is that how you see it ?.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes you right, and that is how I see it also, but I think when one see's what is called god in that sense, then one doesn't cling to the concept of that god, because we are already one in the God, so clinging will only take us away from the oneness, we then will be in duality, us and god separate, is that how you see it ?.

Yes...that's it...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

True.

But the trouble starts when one starts attributing anything to the concepts

Using conceptual language in the context of religion as an expedient to guide is fine, as long as it is understood the real is on the other side...and actual non-conceptual realization will never eventuate through mere belief, ritual, etc...

 

[Twilight Hue]

I know very little about Buddhism but was aware some realms of it do acknowledge a higher being and others do not consider it. So how does "non-theistic Buddhism" give any thought to an afterlife? Is it reincarnation of some sorts where they believe they achieve higher perfection?

No. Reincarnation or rebirth actually has nothing to do with Buddhism. It may be something that a Buddhist may be privy to thinking, but the practices themselves deal with directness without nuances of any type of philosophy or belief of any kind. Those particular thoughts and ideologies that creep up can become distractions givin the nature by which they come about, and literally get in the way. In essence, there are actually no set opinions or philosophies formulated of which defines Buddhism comparatively with religions that do happen to revolve around an ideology.
.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. Reincarnation or rebirth actually has nothing to do with Buddhism. It may be something that a Buddhist may be privy to thinking, but the practices themselves deal with directness without nuances of any type of philosophy or belief of any kind. Those particular thoughts and ideologies that creep up can become distractions givin the nature by which they come about, and literally get in the way. In essence, there are actually no set opinions or philosophies formulated of which defines Buddhism comparatively with religions that do happen to revolve around an ideology.
.

Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism teach rebirth...and all sects teach of the three forms of Buddha...Nirmana-kaya, Dharma-kaya,. and Samboga-kaya..

Buddhist Schools: A Comparative Study of the Schools

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Things is, no one notices the times one does turn the cheek and forgive, only when they don't....

I was mostly referring to the rest of the post. But I would think that there is far more to religion than forgiveness.

 

[JoStories]

No. Reincarnation or rebirth actually has nothing to do with Buddhism. It may be something that a Buddhist may be privy to thinking, but the practices themselves deal with directness without nuances of any type of philosophy or belief of any kind. Those particular thoughts and ideologies that creep up can become distractions givin the nature by which they come about, and literally get in the way. In essence, there are actually no set opinions or philosophies formulated of which defines Buddhism comparatively with religions that do happen to revolve around an ideology.
.

That is not entirely true. In Buddhism, its called bhava which is the Sanskrit word for 'rebirth'. Some Buddhists believe we are reborn, (NOT the same notion as Christian reborn) into what form we choose, and that can include animal. The process of being born over and over is called 'Samsara', also Sankrit. It has less to do with being reborn over and over but rather more about the evolving consciousness. The soul is attempting enlightenment. I think the trouble comes of a misunderstanding of the two terms; reincarnation and rebirth. By attempting to live the Four Noble Truths, reaching toward Bodhi, which means awakening, one can break from, eventually, from Samsara. (What Buddhism teaches, B. O'Brien, 2015)