Maybe, maybe not.
I forgotā¦super soakers and graffitiā¦we value that above all else.
2 Likes
I think itās quite clear Dawkinsā target was not the open minded liberal Christian, but Bible belt warriors and their ilk.
How is this, Bob? Why are you a mystic? Why am I a mystic?
To quote Sam Harris:
āIn fact, āatheismā is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a ānon-astrologerā or a ānon-alchemistā. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.ā
1 Like
The term atheism is a reaction to a particular kind of theismā¦
A kind of Afro-Asiatic theism that claims to have occult knowledge of the mysterious, knowing its characteristics and its motives.
I think militant atheism is the result of having to listen to this kind of guy one time too many:
Do they really though?
How concepts are defined exposes motive.
My use is to represent the mystifying, the unknown aspects of nature as divine, because they are essential to existence.
The Afro-Asiatic definition uses god to represent the antithesis of what we experience as existence, offering salvation, or relief, or hope, to those who find existence ātoo much to handle,ā or ānot enoughā to justify their suffering.
God is also used as a representation of the ideal man, wihtin a given cultureā¦or the collective idealized.
So, it depends on how you define it.
Similarly, how you CHOOSE to define āfreeā, relative to āwillā, also exposes your motives.
If you wish to absolve yourself of all responsibility and blame it all on others, then defining āfreeā in a way that makes it impossible to exist - supernaturally, metaphysically the antithesis of physis - helps you dismiss freedom as āillusory.ā
Victim psychosis compels men to CHOOSE this definition.
But if truth is your objective, then you define terms beginning with perceptible actions - you begin with physis.
1 Like
I would argue that you cannot adequately describe everything under physical materialism and when it concerns the much bigger questions on human existence it is a bit lacking.
Buddhism like Christianity has many different denominations and traditions where they donāt agree on everything concerning interpretations. Theravada Buddhism could be described as being more atheistic whereas Mahayana Buddhism could be described as being more spiritually religious. It depends on what specific Buddhist sect youāre talking about. I am more into the Mahayana stuff myself. Itās a common misconception that Buddhism is synonymous with atheism in the west, thatās not exactly true.
Clairvoyant? No, just intuitive, yes, letās go with that word.
Did you know that the major person behind the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest?
Still, with constant new scientific studies or findings theyāre saying even that theory might be an incorrect one where scientists cannot agree on everything universally and objectively.
Thereās nothing in Buddhism that states one cannot believe in divinity or anything else, purely western misconception.
Your insistence of science over religion implies it, as for me I believe in a world where religion and science coexists together. When I read a book on biological evolution I see it as an illustration of divine design.
Something, something about science lacking the ability to describe the human spirit and soul. Something, something about science being a sterile tool by comparison
When the secrets of consciousness are unraveled the spirit will be revealed.
For now we know what we call āspiritā is mind/body synthesis.
1 Like
Yes, but with some traditional religions they would argue that they got the whole mind body synthesis figured out. Is that not what religion does in the absence of scientific evaluation? Religion picks up what science cannot explain concerning the mysteries and unexplainable in existence. And maybe it is that mystery of existence that makes life worth living more where if everything had a material explanation we would sooner become disenchanted with all of existence altogether.
What is the meaning of this term?
Off topic. Was this intended for a different thread.?
All religions are the result of syncratisms.
I travelled in S E Asia and although Buddhism was dominant, different versions blended with local systems of belief.
But Buddha himself rejected the idea of a God., the Buddha was not a theist. He did not teach belief in a creator god or a supreme deity as central to his path. Instead, he focused on personal experience, ethical living, and mental discipline to achieve enlightenment (nirvana). While he acknowledged the existence of gods in a cultural sense, he saw them as impermanent beings who, like humans, were subject to karma and rebirth.
Since I presume you are a Westerner and claim to have been an atheist, this ought to mean you are still an atheist, essentially.
1 Like
Strawman. It matters not, which versions since all are Theistic.
I believe in a God but as I have said in another post here I donāt think any kind of anthropomorphication does the subject any kind of justice since for me God is energy, vibration, mathematics, or some kind of universal force like Pythagoras and even the Daoists would describe it. And, as a Buddhist I try my best to follow the teachings of Buddha with that belief in mind.
From what I understand Buddha never preached any religious belief but he also didnāt actively preach against it.
Then there is the confrontation of Buddha and Mara, not exactly atheistic material right there. As for Buddha himself even though I donāt view him as a God I see him as an individual who was touched and influenced by one making him a divine patron saint [Bodhisattva] of sorts.
[The most divine of all the Bodhisattvas.]