Deist, Theist, Agnostic, And Atheist

[Jun]

To them it is THEE true Buddhism. Also, isn't that the oldest form of Buddhism? Didn't Sidd himself "talk" to one, or was it several, of these "gods", or Bodhisattvas, Divas?, in his father's garden when he was a teen?

 

If we are to believe the "stories" about Buddhism then the Buddha was born from his mothers side, and walked as soon as he was born!

 

Supernatural abilities, gods and devas, were all added to "flavour" the teachings for an audience who already accepted such things. Hindu (and early Brahman) influences abound in the texts of Buddhism. This is "religious" Buddhism.

 

It is with great reluctance that I admit to most that I am an ordained Buddhist priest. Why? Because the definition of Buddhism that I practice has nothing at all to do with the social institutions all over the world that use that term. The school of Buddhism that I practice strongly denies the supernatural decoration and fanciful stories that were later added to the Buddhist teachings. These sorts of things are a hindrance to the teachings, they add a theatrical atmosphere for those attracted to the mysticism. But it's not reality.

 

I could never accept written scriptures, or anothers view of the Truth - and I don't expect anyone else to either. Cut through all that crap.

 

I am not saying that I have the answers, or that my version of the truth is the truth. Buddhism will help you to find the questions, but you have to provide your own answers.

 

Zen does not rely on scripture, nor is there a set system of beliefs to adopt. What most don't realise is that Buddhists (those who have delved deep into the teachings, those in the know) don't give a rats arse about the fact that the many words attributed to the Buddha (and all the fancy magical stories) were written hundreds of years after his death. The only thing that matters to Buddhists is the reality of the world that we live in right now.Buddhism is based on your real life as it is, not on whether there are nine realms of heaven, or nine hells, or devas and gods. Leave that for the religionists, who often use these things to rope in more devout followers and to make a buck.

 

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on truth. A "religion" that talks of gods and heavenly realms is the last place you'll find the truth.

 

The Buddha never asked his followers to accept anything simply because he said it. He taught a method by which any individual can experience the truth directly. He taught NOT to rely on external sources, texts, rituals, gods and devas.

 

That's why I speak up when someone makes a blanket statement that Buddhists do not believe in gods. Some do and it seems to be a pretty popular form of Buddhism. Since I'm not a Buddhist I can't say if they practice their Buddhism right or not, but then I don't think anyone is qualified to say of they are or not.

 

Did I make a blanket statement - yes. Why? Because I believe I am in a position to. Does anyone have to agree? No. Does anyone have to listen? No. I base my opinion on the state of Buddhism as I see it on sixteen years of practice and as one ordained in a long line of Buddhist practice.

 

Because it is popular is it correct? You will see Asian Buddhists (in China, Japan, Southeast Asia) "praying" to the statues of the Bodhisattvas. Is this wrong? Is this Buddhism? Well, yes of course its wrong! Is it Buddhist? Well, unfortunately it has become accepted Buddhist practice.

 

Bodhisattvas are NOT supernatural beings that exist in another realm that intervene in human affairs. Anyone who believes this is practicing something altogether different to Buddhism. Buddhists do not believe in supernatural beings.

 

Where does that leave the Vajrayana school? (as practiced in Tibet and Japan) I don't know. But I think they are far off the mark if they think wearing talismans, praying to fictional gods, or reciting magical incantations is going to show them the truth.

 

I am happy to distance myself from that "Buddhism."

Am I qualified? My teacher thinks so, or else I would not have been ordained and I wouldn't be allowed to lecture on this very topic.

[The Paineful Truth]

Dave wrote:

The only logical position to take is that gods do not exist.

 

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

If you don't have absolute knowledge that there is or is no God, is it logical to make such an absolute statement?

 

Agnostic and atheist seem similar.

They are the same since neither has a god they believe in.

 

If they were the same, why then the two different words? I agree with most of the other definitions of agnostic here. You can be an agnostic-deist/theist/atheist which merely communicates that you don't have certain knowledge (proof) of your position. I don't see how you can rationally be anything but agnostic about your belief. I guess that means that some atheists, deists and other theists would be irrational. Imagine that.

 

Da book say: ag·nos·tic n. 1. One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists. ("Can be" is forever. I prefer is no proof such as in the following):

 

Wikipedia says: Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities — is unknown or inherently unknowable. (Italics mine)

[LostOrFound]

 

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

 

 

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

[LosingMyReligion]

I think I am a Deist too...But I agree, I might be an atheist with no guts.

 

After kicking Jesus to the curb I can't force myself to believe in any other gods, no matter how much I want to...

 

furthermore, I take issue with the "watchmaker" theory. Why would anyone create something and then not want anything else to do with it? It just seems extremely absurd to me...

Maybe if it was just some omnipotent force(like in Star Wars)of creation I could buy that...but a personal god that you pray to and it talks back.

 

I can't really believe that anymore...

[woodsmoke]

I've gotten the impression from discussions with other members here that the idea of a non-sentient creative force is actually a popular philosophy within Deism. I've never seen it actually compared to the Force in Star Wars, but that does seem an apt analogy.

 

Though I should think they would appreciate not being too liberal with it. Even gutless atheists have dignity.

[Dave]

To them it is THEE true Buddhism. Also, isn't that the oldest form of Buddhism? Didn't Sidd himself "talk" to one, or was it several, of these "gods", or Bodhisattvas, Divas?, in his father's garden when he was a teen?

If we are to believe the "stories" about Buddhism then the Buddha was born from his mothers side, and walked as soon as he was born!

Something about an elephant running up and down gold and silver hills and then entering his mothes womb through her side. Of course they're trying to get a virgin birth since someone of that stature cannot be born through that dirty vagina. That's where men play, not gods, or people like The Buddha come out of.

Supernatural abilities, gods and devas, were all added to "flavour" the teachings for an audience who already accepted such things. Hindu (and early Brahman) influences abound in the texts of Buddhism. This is "religious" Buddhism.

Yes. It exists. Why do so many Western style Buddhists deny it's existence?

It is with great reluctance that I admit to most that I am an ordained Buddhist priest. Why? Because the definition of Buddhism that I practice has nothing at all to do with the social institutions all over the world that use that term. The school of Buddhism that I practice strongly denies the supernatural decoration and fanciful stories that were later added to the Buddhist teachings. These sorts of things are a hindrance to the teachings, they add a theatrical atmosphere for those attracted to the mysticism. But it's not reality.

But to them it is a reality. To me what you are saying is no different than a christian saying someone else isn't christian because they don't believe the same as they do.

The Buddha never asked his followers to accept anything simply because he said it. He taught a method by which any individual can experience the truth directly. He taught NOT to rely on external sources, texts, rituals, gods and devas.

Yet they still follow without question.

Where does that leave the Vajrayana school? (as practiced in Tibet and Japan) I don't know. But I think they are far off the mark if they think wearing talismans, praying to fictional gods, or reciting magical incantations is going to show them the truth.

And they think you are off the mark. So what's the difference? Nothing.

[Dave]

Dave wrote:

The only logical position to take is that gods do not exist.

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

If you don't have absolute knowledge that there is or is no God, is it logical to make such an absolute statement?

Yes, based on evidence - or in this case thousands of years of lack of evidence.

Agnostic and atheist seem similar.

They are the same since neither has a god they believe in.

If they were the same, why then the two different words? I agree with most of the other definitions of agnostic here. You can be an agnostic-deist/theist/atheist which merely communicates that you don't have certain knowledge (proof) of your position. I don't see how you can rationally be anything but agnostic about your belief. I guess that means that some atheists, deists and other theists would be irrational. Imagine that.

The two different words come about from the confusion people have about the popular definitions of the words.

Da book say:......

Sorry, I do not play the Dictionary Game. That's a game where people present a dictionary definition as THEE inerrant definition of a word and that definition usually includes several different, sometimes opposing, definitions and claim that that word means all of those definitions at once. That sets up an argument based on selective reading, equivocation, internal contradiction, and over simplification, not to mention an appeal to authority.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks everybody for your contributions. I don't have much to add. Seems we haven't changed all that much since we left Christianity. The one thing we seem to agree on is that names for our belief systems are important, and that our own names *as interpreted by US* are correct.

 

Well, I was talking with my prof this week about some of these things and he said I still think like a fundamentalist.

 

Go figure!

[Jun]

Yes. It exists. Why do so many Western style Buddhists deny it's existence?

 

The Zen zect that I follow doesn't deny it's existance (religious, supernatural practices in Buddhism), but explains how they became a part of Buddhism and why they aren't Buddhism. They are hindrances that only confuse the teachings.

 

As for "Westerners denying its existance," the sect I follow has been trying to shake off these religious supernatural trappings for 400 years - IN JAPAN - way before any "Westerners" came into contact with the teachings.

 

But to them it is a reality. To me what you are saying is no different than a christian saying someone else isn't christian because they don't believe the same as they do.

 

That's a shame. Buddhism is NOT about beliefs.

 

Yet they still follow without question.

 

Unfortunately.

 

And they think you are off the mark. So what's the difference? Nothing.

 

Nothing, exactly!

[Dave]

Yes. It exists. Why do so many Western style Buddhists deny it's existence?

The Zen zect that I follow doesn't deny it's existance (religious, supernatural practices in Buddhism), but explains how they became a part of Buddhism and why they aren't Buddhism. They are hindrances that only confuse the teachings.

Yet they say otherwise. Who's right? Who has the right to say they're wrong?

As for "Westerners denying its existance," the sect I follow has been trying to shake off these religious supernatural trappings for 400 years - IN JAPAN - way before any "Westerners" came into contact with the teachings.

Why? Weren't the original teachings good enough?

But to them it is a reality. To me what you are saying is no different than a christian saying someone else isn't christian because they don't believe the same as they do.

That's a shame. Buddhism is NOT about beliefs.

Yet they still follow without question.

Unfortunately.

If they did question, as with any other religion, they'd cease to be part of that religion. One has to accept without question in order to follow the beliefs of a religion - even if they claim they have no beliefs or dogma.

 

But we've strayed off topic. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Jun]

Why? Weren't the original teachings good enough?

 

Er, the idea is that we are getting back to the original teachings - without the added muck that has been apended to it.

 

One has to accept without question in order to follow the beliefs of a religion - even if they claim they have no beliefs or dogma.

 

No. Buddhism is not a religion based upon dogma or belief. There is nothing to believe in, no dogma to follow. Nothing to accept without question.

 

Back to the topic!

[Dave]

No. Buddhism is not a religion based upon dogma or belief. There is nothing to believe in, no dogma to follow. Nothing to accept without question.

Which IS the dogma.

[Jun]

ha ha!

 

No dogma equals dogma, I like it.

[MrSpooky]

Thanks everybody for your contributions. I don't have much to add. Seems we haven't changed all that much since we left Christianity. The one thing we seem to agree on is that names for our belief systems are important, and that our own names *as interpreted by US* are correct.

 

Well, I was talking with my prof this week about some of these things and he said I still think like a fundamentalist.

 

Go figure!

 

While self-identification is important, I think it's much more important to have a clear understanding of the nuances of the question. There is a major difference between a metaphysical and an epistemic position, and both factor into the question of God's existence in a very important way.

[Asimov]

Thanks everybody for your contributions. I don't have much to add. Seems we haven't changed all that much since we left Christianity. The one thing we seem to agree on is that names for our belief systems are important, and that our own names *as interpreted by US* are correct.

 

Well, I was talking with my prof this week about some of these things and he said I still think like a fundamentalist.

 

Go figure!

 

Really? You still believe in the literal Word of God?

[The Paineful Truth]

 

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

 

 

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

 

Where does this come from?

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks everybody for your contributions. I don't have much to add. Seems we haven't changed all that much since we left Christianity. The one thing we seem to agree on is that names for our belief systems are important, and that our own names *as interpreted by US* are correct.

 

Well, I was talking with my prof this week about some of these things and he said I still think like a fundamentalist.

 

Go figure!

 

Really? You still believe in the literal Word of God?

 

I'm not sure what you mean, Asimov. My meeting with the prof was not about the Bible. Nor was this thread.

 

Re the literal word of God. I don't think I ever truly believed that the Bible was the literal word of God. There are far too many speakers in the Bible for all of it to be the spoken word of one individual. Thus it might be a metaphysical or allegorical word of God but that is hardly literal.

[Asimov]

I'm not sure what you mean, Asimov. My meeting with the prof was not about the Bible. Nor was this thread.

 

I know, but he did say that you still think like a fundamentalist. Is that not what a fundamentalist is?

 

I guess my question is, what do you mean by "thinks like a fundamentalist"?

[Dave]

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

Where does this come from?

The extreme lack of any evidence that a god might exist and the obvious fact that gods are only found in our various mythologies or based on gods found in those mythologies.

[LostOrFound]

 

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

 

 

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

 

Where does this come from?

 

An inability to produce said god or, at least, verifiable evidence of said god.

 

One can can develop a theory that there is a god but without testing that reveals the existence thereof, one cannot KNOW that there IS a god.

 

ie/ One can claim to know there is a god because he has "experienced" god. He can then go on to describe his "experience" and state "you cannot deny my experience". The one may have indeed "experienced" something but without verifiable evidence there is no way of determining what it is he actually "experienced". God? Maybe... or maybe it was just gas.

 

I would not make claim to KNOWING there is not a god but without evidence thereof I have no reason to believe that there IS a god.

 

When one claims to KNOW something exists, he must therefore be able to verify the existence thereof or default to the more logical position of not KNOWING, but only believing for whatever reasons.

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not sure what you mean, Asimov. My meeting with the prof was not about the Bible. Nor was this thread.

 

I know, but he did say that you still think like a fundamentalist. Is that not what a fundamentalist is?

 

I guess my question is, what do you mean by "thinks like a fundamentalist"?

 

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. I forget the exact content of the conversation but I was applying some pretty black and white definitions to various terms. After he made that statement I tried finding a more open way to ask my questions. One of the questions was: What is church about?

 

That allowed the context of the conversation to set the parameters of his answers. Perhaps I was presenting questions in the context of a specifically defined situation. Frankly, I don't remember the content of the conversation. I do remember his charge and that I was really taken aback at it and then tried to a more open approach.

[The Paineful Truth]

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

Where does this come from?

The extreme lack of any evidence that a god might exist and the obvious fact that gods are only found in our various mythologies or based on gods found in those mythologies.

When have I ever come close to even implying that I know that God exists? I scream from the rafters that I'm an agnostic. What more can I do?

 

This is in response to L & F as well.

 

I ask again, where does that come from?

[woodsmoke]

And he answered you... *points up three posts*

[LostOrFound]

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

Where does this come from?

The extreme lack of any evidence that a god might exist and the obvious fact that gods are only found in our various mythologies or based on gods found in those mythologies.

When have I ever come close to even implying that I know that God exists? I scream from the rafters that I'm an agnostic. What more can I do?

 

This is in response to L & F as well.

 

I ask again, where does that come from?

 

I don't know that you have said that you "know". I guess your general discussion of the matter made it seem that you feel pretty certain a god exists and I guess I missed your "agnostic" comments. Hell, I can't keep up with my daily meds - and at 50 I only take one LOL.

 

Personally, I just don't see much difference between NOT believing in a god and in saying there might be one and then again there might not be one.... just seems like splitting hairs to me. If I don't have a belief in a god (or even if I do have a belief in one but don't think it/he is interested in what goes on in my life and my world) then, what the hell does it matter one way or the other. In my little world there IS NO god, even if one exists 'somewhere out there'.....

[R. S. Martin]

Is it illogical to say that you don't know if a God exists?

No, but it is illogical to say that you know that a god does exist.

Where does this come from?

The extreme lack of any evidence that a god might exist and the obvious fact that gods are only found in our various mythologies or based on gods found in those mythologies.

When have I ever come close to even implying that I know that God exists? I scream from the rafters that I'm an agnostic. What more can I do?

 

You could start talking like one. Saying one thing and acting another--well, we've been around. You come across to me as being undecided but you don't seem to have any peace about it. That's okay. We go through those stages. However, undecided is probably not true agnostic.

 

I believe the true agnostic has done the homework, thought through the arguments, and concludes that it is not possible to make a definitive statement either way. That's basically where I'm at. Somehow, most of the time, I feel it's not important to know whether or not God exists.

 

When I read all the atheist arguments against the existence of God I almost take a position alongside them. Then I remember all the phenomena for which the only logical answer (for me) is that a supernatural or spiritual power exists.

 

These phenomena are so rare, and experienced definitively by so few human beings, that we are probably a long way from even establishing their existence. Much less can we explain what causes them.

 

I happen to believe we have solid evidence that they exist. Science is seeking ways to investigate. I don't know if there is a pscyhological explanation, whether it has something to do with the natural environment, or whether spirit really does exist. Maybe there is some other cause. Until science finds a reliable way to investigate we will probably not know.

 

Of course, there is always the off-chance that some scientist is just about ready to announce definitive data. When that happens, a whole batch of other scientists will have to arrive at the same conclusion from a variety of other ways. That could take another couple centuries. In the meantime, there's a whole lot of us people who will have to find a constructive and productive way to live with not knowing.

 

Some people will take the atheist position. Others will take the theist position. Others won't bother themselves about it. Buddhists, for example, so far as I know just don't bother about it. They have other equally difficult issues to solve/prove/deal with.

 

What position feels most right for you, Paineful Truth? Of course, there is no need to decide at this point. I think there are quite a few of us who will discuss the issues with you when you are ready. You will, however, have to get it into your head that we are not evangelical Christians.

 

This means that we don't feel a need to convert others to our way of thinking. Sometimes you come across as needing to convert others to your way of thinking. We resent when you are that way with us.

 

At one point you told me that you felt so sure about your ideas that you wrote a book about it. That's okay. Many of us do that. I don't see anyone here negating your ideas. Neither do we feel an obligation to accept them. This is not to say that there is no one who will benefit from your insights.

 

A batch of self-professed exChristians might not be your best target audience. Try people who are still playing with the ideas. I think you have already had Amazon list it. There may not be much else you can do at this point though obviously I don't know because I've never tried selling a book.

 

I do hope you have another means of income to meet your day-to-day living expenses. Your book will probably sell but it might take a while. I think desk-top publishing, made fairly easy with computers and printers, has taken the aura out of publishing because anybody can do it.

 

I wish you the best.