yes and highlighted.tiltbillings wrote:Thank you for sharing your opinion, but other opinions carry as much, if not more, weight than does yours. What atheism means, as has been clearly shown, is not set in stone and can be used variously.Cittasanto wrote:but not when talking about Buddhism.tiltbillings wrote:Of course atheism is appropriate when talking about an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos in the context of the Buddha's teaching and how the Buddha regarded such a claim.
you havn't shown anything regarding the term, although "how a word means is based upon how the word is (commonly) used"; which the YA question did highlight certain usages, something you are yet to show.
christians used to be called atheists because they didn't believe in the roman pantheon, and later when christianity became mainstream monotheism was included, and atheisms range widened to all forms yet, continued to be used as a derogitory term for non believers of a particular religion, which happened to be christianity.
I do not see the point in dispraising YA! here.Yahoo Answers. Yes, well, there is a source of high quality thinking. The issue is not a matter of trying to prove that what the Buddhist texts say is somehow objectively true; rather, the point is: here is what the Buddha taught. What people opt to do with it is their business.and it is easier and more precise/less misleading to just state a monotheistic God is not accepted in Buddhism, rather than just stating buddhist atheism and then having to explain why gods are found in the canon. because one thing that was noticable in the Yahoo Answers question was the requirement of proof in many of the posts, and texts would not supply that proof, and to then call buddhism atheistic raises the question "where is this atheism considering all the supernatural beings?"
yes what people opt to do with that is their business so there can be buddhists who are atheists (as said - I believe - three times now)
the issue is how to classify Buddhism which does not give the wrong impression, as Buddhist atheism is starting up and taking stances along the lines of there is no rebirth with one leader of the movement being Stephen Batchelor. there are those who are Buddhist monotheists, or hold other philosophic views hand in hand with Buddhist but I would no sooner say that any combination is good description.
Yet none of this escapes the fact that Buddhism is not (a)without (theos)a god in one shape or form.
Then obviously you have not been paying any attention, or you are simply and willfully, ignoring that which is contrary how you think we should all think about the Buddha's teachings.Accepting one god but denying another isn't actually atheistic by any definition I have seen
I am sorry but the exact same could be said to the other side here!
just to refer back to Bens dictionary quote at the bottom of page six http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p196178" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
theism actually expanded its range to include monotheism, and still includes other views of divinity today.
the problem here is that the specificity referred to is actually due to the term being used as an insult by the current cultural norm regarding god views, please look at the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
yet they are still gods and the atheist context would remove gods entirely due to a lack of solid proof.I don't have a problem with how the Buddha taught his Dhamma. The "gods" within the suttas are certainly not what they were in the Brahmanical texts/teachings from whence they came. The Buddha directly rejected an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, which is essentially a theological statement, putting the Buddha's teachings in that context of talking about agent driven creation in an atheist context, and the gods, while having been retained by the Buddha, have been severely demoted, subsumed, and markedly subordinated by the Buddha's teachings, putting the Buddha in a superior position. You can call the devas in the suttas gods if you want, but they are very limited, at best figurehead gods, and, indeed, markedly different from how the Hindus view them. While the gods in general have not been rejected as has the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, they have been subsumed and subordinated, leaving them with no actual significance or power in terms of the core of the Buddha's teachings, and all of this is what gives the unique characteristics to Buddhist atheism.Sorry the problem you are having is the fact that Buddhism isn't actually atheistic, because of the Gods found within the canon, whether they are subject to rebirth or not they are gods. I say this because the Buddha didn't call a butcher a potter, i.e. he called thing what they were, & said what he meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Range" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
as I have said before, a personal preference to be associated with one or more "philosophic" approaches is not the issue, someone can be a pastafarian wiccan for all I care, But I am not concerned with what individualls want to practice, or believe here, rather how to define Buddhism appropriately.You don't have to call it Buddhist atheism, but others who may opt to are no less justified in their opinion than are you in yours.
Buddhism has a nontheistic approach as although it is inclusive of gods, they are not involved or important to the practice; it is not a atheistic approach as the belief in gods is still present.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... atheist__2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... heistic__2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
but there comes a point of agreeing to dissagree so have the last word if you wish.