binocular wrote: I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.
Honestly, I don't think that's the best way to frame it. To give an example of what I mean:
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against fairies."
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against vampires."
"I am still waiting to see some good arguments against bigfoot."
It's not like I suggested "I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God, and until I get those arguments, I will continue to believe in God."
That said, I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God. Some arguments against God that I could really stand by, openly declare, some that I wouldn't feel silly to state in polite society. Until then, I am an atheist, just not a vocal one.
I don't believe in a god for the simple reason that I can't find any good reasons to believe. Just like the above three. I shouldn't have to come up with detailed arguments against something I've seen no evidence for, because until the evidence is very compelling it's just an intellectual/philosophical exercise.
By that reasoning, you also don't believe that, for example, free will exists, that all humans are equal or that democracy is a worthwhile goal. Because so far, there is no "compelling" evidence for any of those. --?
Mkoll wrote:One of the prime rules of communication is to know your audience. I think a lot of crusaders of any stripe often forget this rule and seem to think that their arguments are so good that anyone should be able to understand them. That's just not the case in my experience. The minds of some people are simply dead set in some regards and it's, at best, a waste of time debating about those things.
For all practical intents and purposes, in order to be a Buddhist, at least a Theravada Buddhist, one must adhere to a particular brand of atheism. This is where the eight worldly conditions effectively become the eight transcendental conditions.
If one isn't the kind of atheist as is expected from Buddhists, one gets kicked out, or leaves on one's own accord, as it becomes too unbearable to stay.
kitztack wrote:to take refuge in the Sangha as a matter of fitting in or to belong is to do so in ignorance, neglecting the teaching of anatta
I think that's an interesting take on the matter.
But it depends on what exactly do you mean by "anatta", given that this is one of the more hotly disputed issues among Buddhists.
Ignoring or downplaying the relevance of the social aspect of going for refuge in Buddhism, or of becoming a member of a religion can amount to a kind of solipsism, a kind of absolute belief that one "has it right" regardless of what the people who are also declared members of said religion say.
In Christianity, they sometimes use the term "lone ranger Christianity" - "when a person tries to be a follower of Christ all on their own, without any authority, relationships or accountability" (source
I think that similarly, there can also be lone ranger Buddhism. Of course, there is that passage from the Dhammapada stating that if one fails to find a suitable companion, one should go off on one's own. But to start off already at odds with other members - then perhaps one isn't on the path at all to begin with. I'm not sure to whom that passage from the Dhammapada applies. Probably to advanced practitioners. But newcomers?
Newcomers to Buddhism are not rarely told to "join a Buddhist group and do as told." But what if one is already at the onset at odds with the Buddhists (such as being a very different kind of atheist as they are)?
chownah wrote: binocular wrote:
chownah wrote:Here's one: I have never experienced anything that indicates that god exists.
A.k.a. "I've never seen God, therefore, God does not exist. My experiences are the absolute measure of what exists and what doesn't. I know better than anyone else."
You are not answering to what I posted.....
What would you consider to be an answer to what you posted?