Ask An Atheist Anything., Actually, don't. Keep it relevant. Aliteration is cool. Options

[Spirited Away]

And what fake cover is that?...

The one that's saying "I know something you don't cuz I'm supposedly smarter than you, but I'm not telling you what I know". That's the same as admitting that you don't know anything and just trying to play it off.

People are asking legit questions. I was actually waiting on your answer on a couple of them to see if you can finally give a decent response that will make me go "maybe he does know what he's talking about". I've been waiting in vain.

Look, my first impression of you from your first coming here is that you're pretty smart. Yes, I still remember you from back then, you may not remember me, but we did debate extensively. I've always been around here. Unfortunately, the way you address people and the way you approach their questions are so lame, in the physical sense, that you become unintelligent and unsophisticated.

You don't care what I think, I know, and that's fine. But this is a debate forum, and not one where you can say "I have all the right answers". If you do, write a book on it. After that, get one third of the world's population to agree with you, and maybe then you'd have some credibility. Until then, stop thinking "I have all the answers".

[fameONE]

By no means would I throw it out the window simply because I'm not all pro believing in reincarnation, I just like to hold my own sets of beliefs and not be part of a religion, much less organized religion.

What a reasonable response. Most Atheists I've met are unable to answer the question as to why they're an Atheist without taking a direct shot at Christianity.

You don't have to focus on Reincarnation if you don't want to. You can focus on the ethical and moral aspects of Buddhism. It doesn't restrict you at all. Of course, karma and reincarnation is a huge part of it, but I focus on its ethics and morals. There's no punishment for not believing, there's only punishment for living unethically.

I like that. I like that a lot, actually.

[Spirited Away]

By no means would I throw it out the window simply because I'm not all pro believing in reincarnation, I just like to hold my own sets of beliefs and not be part of a religion, much less organized religion.

Buddhism is cool with you that you don't believe in religion. It just asks that you live with morals.

I'm the same as you about every religion.

What a reasonable response. Most Atheists I've met are unable to answer the question as to why they're an Atheist without taking a direct shot at Christianity.
I like that. I like that a lot, actually.

Yes, that is what I love about Buddhism, even though I am not a Buddhist myself.

[illriginal]

The one that's saying "I know something you don't cuz I'm supposedly smarter than you, but I'm not telling you what I know". That's the same as admitting that you don't know anything and just trying to play it off.

Well technically speaking, no one's really smarter than anyone. You know things I don't know (economics is one thing) just like you don't know things I know.

People are asking legit questions. I was actually waiting on your answer on a couple of them.

Which are they?

Look, my first impression of you from your first coming here is that you're pretty smart. Yes, I still remember you from back then, you may not remember me, but we did debate extensively. I've always been around here. Unfortunately, the way you address people and the way you approach their questions is so lame, in the physical sense, that you become unintelligent and unsophisticated.

Yes I remember you, you were the only one worthy of debating with because other people would provoke arguments.

Well when people like Nosex come at me all vulgarized what do you expect me to do? I was answering everyone's question, not even debating. And here came Nosex flipping out because I was properly answering the questions.

That kid couldn't ever debate anything outside the internet, he'd end up getting a beat down.

Anyways if someone's talking about something I've never heard of before, not only would I ask questions but I would also research it on my own. I've always worked hard to grasp what someone's bringing to the table.

[brooklyneast05]

Anyways if someone's talking about something I've never heard of before, not only would I ask questions but I would also research it on my own. I've always worked hard to grasp what someone's bringing to the table.

i think one of things your missing is that you aren't talking about things we've never heard of. we also aren't asking you to give us a full out lesson on something. we're simply asking you to back up the claims you make.

asking you a question doesn't mean that we have no clue what you're talking about. it may mean (and most likely does in this case) that we don't agree with what you're saying. you're conclusion that you've reached is different than ours, and we're trying to ask HOW you got it.

i'm familiar with all the people involved in this right now and they're all smart people. quite a bit above the majority of people on these forums. they aren't too stupid to go read anything for themselves. they're trying to legitimately debate you, but that's not really possible if you won't back up anything. if you really do know what you're talking about, i'm pretty sure we'd all be interested in hearing that. we're obviously all interested in this subject.

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

My teacher told me that in atheist is against God and having no religion is either not believing in a higher power or believing in a variety of religions that may contradict each other.
So my question is, are you against God or simply don't believe in anything?

Denotatively, being an atheist means:

–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

that`s it.


IMO, your teacher was incorrect in their definition. Atheists aren`t AGAINST god, we`re against the concept of one. The whole being good and all that jazz is nice and constitutes good morals, ethics, which God and most religions strive for (oh, and finding yourself i guess), but it`s really just the whole "supreme being" thing we`re against. Well, for me that is. I don`t believe there IS a god.

I hope this answers your question, Shrima.

[ersatz]

Going back to the actual debate going on here...

I'm not really spiritual at all, which is what leads me away from Buddhism. It interests me a lot, and if I were to accept any organized religion, that would probably be it. However, I think that until I am much older, I wouldn't be able to follow through with most aspects of it. I'm also a bit too intolerant by nature to follow a lot of it...I guess that's the whole point, but I tried for a little while, and I just ended up punishing myself mentally for being me and was a lot more sad about myself than I was when I wasn't constantly trying to be lovely to everyone, which is the opposite of the desired effect.

[NoSex]

My teacher told me that in atheist is against God and having no religion is either not believing in a higher power or believing in a variety of religions that may contradict each other.
So my question is, are you against God or simply don't believe in anything?

Here is atheism as Wikipedia spins it (and, as I fully agree):

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.

When I use the term atheism, what I am referring to is its most broad definition: The absence of belief in a god or gods. Given this, infantile children are atheists. Retards are atheists. Non-human animals, although this is not exactly philosophically significant, are atheists.

As goes any sort of direct denial or, even further, antagonism towards religion or spirituality (or god specifically), these sorts of positions will vary between atheists. An atheist only had to lack a belief in a god to be considered a non-believer (an atheist), he doesn't have to wage war with god. Although, some atheists certainly do. I, myself, am an antagonist to all forms of superstition and dogmatism - this includes religion and god.

In conclusion, and in conciseness, an atheist is merely someone who does not believe in god. He may believe in all sorts of other things, but, he just doesn't happen to believe in god.

You should read the first page, there are a lot of questions and answers that relate to this line of reasoning. Check it out.

Do Atheists find any legitimacy in Buddhism?

I'll refer you to the first page (as well) and to my comments above. An atheist might find legitimacy in all sorts of spiritual endeavors - that's an individual issue. An atheist has no doctrine, no dogma, and no holy text defined for him (just like a theist). He merely lacks a belief in a god. This leaves him unrestrained to analyze and evaluate the philosophies, ideas, and insights of all corners of academia and the world. An atheist might even find legitimacy in the text of the holy canonical scripture of Christianity - it isn't impossible.

Personally, I despise and find a great deal of contempt in eastern philosophy. Buddhism is no exception. I find the doctrines dehumanizing, anti-hedonistic, weak, and escapist. Especially given the monumental bankruptcy of the first of the Four Nobel Truths (i.e. Life is suffering). Beyond such an idea being debatable, to not find the purpose, power, and excitement in suffering, I feel, is a great disservice to the individual. Suffering is a driving force in our lives - it inspires, it transforms, and it allows us to transcend. To want to escape such an integral aspect of the human experience, to me, is weakness epitomized.

But, even further than my more philosophical disagreements with Buddhism, I still have a hard time believing in reincarnation, oneness, nirvana, spiritual enlightenment, karma, etc. sans evidence.

So, some atheists might find legitimacy in Buddhism. I happen not to find much at all.

[Heathasm]

does being an atheist run your life in every aspect?

[NoSex]

does being an atheist run your life in every aspect?

Of course not, no singular belief will ever, insofar as I can imagine, run and control every aspect of one's life alone. I have many beliefs, attitudes, and feelings that all contribute to my world-view and my behavior. Atheism, however, is a very influential force in my life. Its power does indeed seep into many corners of my life, and is a very important part of my human experience, but, it's not any sort of prison or all-encompassing idea. It comes with more questions than answers (in fact, it doesn't really come with any answers), and, as a result, it moves me into many corners of study and experimentation - if it weren't for my atheism, I certainly would not be who I am today, but, it definitely isn't how I define myself entirely.

I run my life, and I run my atheism.

[Spirited Away]

1. Personally, I despise and find a great deal of contempt in eastern philosophy. Buddhism is no exception. I find the doctrines dehumanizing, anti-hedonistic, weak, and escapist.

2. Especially given the monumental bankruptcy of the first of the Four Nobel Truths (i.e. Life is suffering). Beyond such an idea being debatable, to not find the purpose, powerful, and excitement in suffering, I feel, is a great disservice to the individual.
Suffering is a driving force in our lives - it inspires, it transforms, and it allows us to transcend. To want to escape such an integral aspect of the human experience, to me, is weakness epitomized.

3. But, even further than my more philosophical disagreements with Buddhism, I still have a hard time believing in reincarnation, oneness, nirvana, spiritual enlightenment, karma, etc. sans evidence.

The mysticism of it is far-fetched for me, too. Also, Buddhism is truly unsuited with Western lifestyle. I will dare to assume the source of your criticisms stem from such premises.

Second, it is impossible to call oneself a real Buddhist without living like a monk. That's why I'm not one. However, the most important aspect of Buddhism is morality. If people cannot agree to a life without chasing one pleasure after another, that's fine, just don't harm anyone else in the process.

With that said, I'll break down your points because it'll be easier for me to address.

1. Escapist, perhaps I can agree with to a certain degree, but please explain your thoughts of Buddhism dehumanizing the individual. I think I know where you'll go with it, but I don't want to make too many assumptions. As to the other points, a hedonist's greed is endless, thus he can never be satisfied with what he has. One of the driving forces of evil is greed. And weakness? Passivity, peace, and morals are weak? Since when? I would agree that compared to the other major religions, Buddhism may seem pussy (not usually associated w/ violence), but would you call Ghandi or MLK Jr. weak?

2. I am unsure of your dissatisfaction of it when you understand that suffering allows us to "transcend". The second Nobel Truth is understanding suffering, and the third is ending suffering. Once we understand why we suffer, we will experience true happiness. Once we are wiser than those meager reasons for suffering, we can end them. Rather than "escape", one can say it's a powerful, and wise "overcoming" of misery. I don't see weakness; perhaps the case is that your glass is half-empty and mine half-full.


3. Yes, as I've said, this is a problem for me, too. But that aside, Buddhism is not about believing or not believing; it's about personal enlightenment.

My understanding of Buddhism is rather limted so I can't say more that without going to a temple and sit with monks, or spend hours researching calling or talking to my aunt (who's a true devout). I rather not take her away from her meditation. So anyway, it's back to Rappelz for me =)

[NoSex]

Also, Buddhism is truly unsuited with Western lifestyle.

Religion as social construction, yeah. I'm pretty sure that's the only reason most people find Buddhism as attractive. Because it is exotic and beyond our routine - it flirts with the idea of helping us escape our own miseries (which we will more easily associate and blame on our western lifestyle rather than our own individual choices).

On to the points, or something like it!

1. Escapist, perhaps I can agree with to a certain degree, but please explain your thoughts of Buddhism dehumanizing the individual. I think I know where you'll go with it, but I don't want to make too many assumptions. As to the other points, a hedonist's greed is endless, thus he can never be satisfied with what he has. One of the driving forces of evil is greed. And weakness? Passivity, peace, and morals are weak? Since when? I would agree that compared to the other major religions, Buddhism may seem pussy (not usually associated w/ violence), but would you call Ghandi or MLK Jr. weak?

First off, I think anything that views the cessation of suffering as most beneficially achieved by the detachment and denial of passion and desire is inherently dehumanizing. The human experience revolves around passion and desire, without these things, I think we are attempting to deny the human experience as a whole. Maybe Homer Simpson said it best, "Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try."

Further, the precepts of Buddhism encompassing the main virtues one must carry when on the path to enlightenment, and, in application of the Eight Fold Path seem to me, even more choking and life-denying. Some of these precepts include the discouragement of sexuality, but, more seriously, others discourage even entertainment (such as dancing).

When I referred to hedonism, I should have clarified precisely what I speaking of. I was talking about Epicureanism (or enlightened hedonism). Epicureanism, unlike it's "primitive" counterpart, considers the long-term quality of pleasures, and not just the short-term quantity. Classically, an Epicurean Hedonist would read a book before he made a buck or had a f**k.

And, as goes weakness, I'll refer back to the escapism of it all and to the wisdom of Homer Simpson (which I don't find much removed from the wisdom of the Buddha himself). The fear of failure and the daunting realities of the suffering that life may be enough inspiration to meditate yourself away into blissfulness, but, I really can't find the strength in that. Maybe I'm just focusing on the radicalism of it all (isn't there something called The Middle Way in Buddhism?), but I really don't find admiration in this demented sort of passionless stoicism spun as spiritual awareness. Where is the spirituality in not being allowed to dance?

And last, but certainly not least, I do find MLK Jr. and Gandhi weak, as well as foolish. (Don't worry, I'll start a thread.)

2. I am unsure of your dissatisfaction of it when you understand that suffering allows us to "transcend". The second Nobel Truth is understanding suffering, and the third is ending suffering. Once we understand why we suffer, we will experience true happiness. Once we are wiser than those meager reasons for suffering, we can end them. Rather than "escape", one can say it's a powerful, and wise "overcoming" of misery. I don't see weakness; perhaps the case is that your glass is half-empty and mine half-full.

I suppose my issue here is that, in Buddhism, there is no glass whatsoever. No fullness, not even a real emptiness, just a singularity with the universe (probably entirely imagined) and a denial of self that, without any confusion or double-speak, strives for an ultimate goal of non-existence.

I want to live - is that weak? They want to be gone - is that strong?

3. Yes, as I've said, this is a problem for me, too. But that aside, Buddhism is not about believing or not believing; it's about personal enlightenment.

Personal enlightenment for the end goal of non-existence...

[lkajsfklajskds]

IMO, your teacher was incorrect in their definition. Atheists aren`t AGAINST god, we`re against the concept of one. The whole being good and all that jazz is nice and constitutes good morals, ethics, which God and most religions strive for (oh, and finding yourself i guess), but it`s really just the whole "supreme being" thing we`re against. Well, for me that is. I don`t believe there IS a god.

I hope this answers your question, Shrima.

kindofish..
Let's say you do believe in finding yourself, good morals and ethics, and whatnot. Does this make you religious or does it make you an atheist?
That was kind of what i was asking. So, somebody who's Christian believes in God, therefore, they believe in all the other things. But, if you believe in all the other things, do you believe in God?

You say being an atheist means you dont believe in God. Or is it that you don't believe in a higher power? Because if you dont believe in God, can you still believe in the Hindu religion? Because in the Hindu religion, we believe in many Gods.

//edit
Sorry, i understand now after reading NoSex's reply to my question.
To some extent, I am an atheist.

[ersatz]

It helps to know as background that Nate is a person that holds egotism and self-concern as high values. That is not to say that he is a bad person by nature, just, his set of morals would not work with an Eastern set of morals, since Eastern philosophies tend to preach love of others above love of oneself.

I am quite the opposite and think that humility is one of the best virtues one can have. People who think extremely highly of themselves and do things that, though they may not be doing it consciously, put themselves above others to make themselves seem superior annoy me incessantly. It makes it hard for me to love them.

Two different people, both atheists, different views on Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies. I hope that answers your question Brandon.

[illriginal]

Do atheists believe in prophecies in general?

[fameONE]

It helps to know as background that Nate is a person that holds egotism and self-concern as high values. That is not to say that he is a bad person by nature, just, his set of morals would not work with an Eastern set of morals, since Eastern philosophies tend to preach love of others above love of oneself.

I am quite the opposite and think that humility is one of the best virtues one can have. People who think extremely highly of themselves and do things that, though they may not be doing it consciously, put themselves above others to make themselves seem superior annoy me incessantly. It makes it hard for me to love them.

Two different people, both atheists, different views on Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies. I hope that answers your question Brandon.

It does. The reason why I asked is because I feel less and less connected to the concept of religion. As you know, it was force-fed to me and after a while, I just threw it all up. I've been able to relate to many Buddhist concepts, but I find it difficult to grasp it all. Discussing religion with Atheists allows me to hear unbiased opinions.

[*Steven*]

It helps to know as background that Nate is a person that holds egotism and self-concern as high values.

Sounds like the characteristics of a good forum troll troll.

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

kindofish..
Let's say you do believe in finding yourself, good morals and ethics, and whatnot. Does this make you religious or does it make you an atheist?
That was kind of what i was asking. So, somebody who's Christian believes in God, therefore, they believe in all the other things. But, if you believe in all the other things, do you believe in God?

You say being an atheist means you dont believe in God. Or is it that you don't believe in a higher power? Because if you dont believe in God, can you still believe in the Hindu religion? Because in the Hindu religion, we believe in many Gods.

You can "find yourself" and learn/have good morals and ethics without being religious or without having religion, IMO. I cant speak for all atheists here, this is just my opinion.

Wait. Somebody who is Christian believes in God. Right. What do you mean "all other things"?

For me, God= higher power. So I don`t believe in God, or a high (supreme) being at all.

Polytheism = many gods. So no, atheists don`t believe in Hinduism. I mean, maybe SOME believe in PARTS and PIECES of the bits, but for the most part, no.

Personally, I don`t consider myself religious and a believer of God (all gods for that matter).

[lkajsfklajskds]

Polytheism = many gods. So no, atheists don`t believe in Hinduism. I mean, maybe SOME believe in PARTS and PIECES of the bits, but for the most part, no.

Yes, that is me =] (shh, don't tell my mom)

For me, God= higher power. So I don`t believe in God, or a high (supreme) being at all

Oh, because if you ask a Hindu "Do you believe in God?" Their reply would be: "No, not really. Please be more specific; which one?"
To us, God is not higher power in general. Its more of a..name, lets say. But if you were to say it as a higher power in general then, yes, we're Polytheists. So, which God?
That is all

[NoSex]

Do atheists believe in prophecies in general?

We keep getting questions like this.

Atheists, by definition, merely lack a belief in any gods. An atheist could believe in prophecies, but, if he or she did, it would merely be an aspect of their individual preference. Although, since you asked generally, I would say, no. Generally, atheists, do not believe in the idea of prophecy. This is because, generally, atheists seem to be less susceptible to belief in any form of superstition (paranormal, supernatural, divine, etc.).

[illriginal]

We keep getting questions like this.

Atheists, by definition, merely lack a belief in any gods. An atheist could believe in prophecies, but, if he or she did, it would merely be an aspect of their individual preference. Although, since you asked generally, I would say, no. Generally, atheists, do not believe in the idea of prophecy. This is because, generally, atheists seem to be less susceptible to belief in any form of superstition (paranormal, supernatural, divine, etc.).

So say for example Nostradamus' prophecies would be nothin more than just a coincidence of some sort? Or people tryin to relate any sort of events to his prophecies just to give him merit?

[NoSex]

So say for example Nostradamus' prophecies would be nothin more than just a coincidence of some sort? Or people tryin to relate any sort of events to his prophecies just to give him merit?

Are we really hear to argue the accuracy of Nostradamus' predictions? If you want to evaluate quatrains, start a thread. But, to give you a short personal response: Nostradamus used ambiguity to create "prophecies" which could be largely interpreted, and have been, ever since. People invent the success of Nostradamus and in the rare cases that they might not, coincidence is always a better bet than mystical precognition.

I guess I'll always be looking for the same headline as Jay Leno: "Psychic Wins Lottery."

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

Yes, that is me =] (shh, don't tell my mom)

Oh, because if you ask a Hindu "Do you believe in God?" Their reply would be: "No, not really. Please be more specific; which one?"
To us, God is not higher power in general. Its more of a..name, lets say. But if you were to say it as a higher power in general then, yes, we're Polytheists. So, which God?
That is all

LOL.
As atheists, God is considered a higher being. But i get what you mean by having "God" as a title, i think.

[illriginal]

Are we really hear to argue the accuracy of Nostradamus' predictions? If you want to evaluate quatrains, start a thread. But, to give you a short personal response: Nostradamus used ambiguity to create "prophecies" which could be largely interpreted, and have been, ever since. People invent the success of Nostradamus and in the rare cases that they might not, coincidence is always a better bet than mystical precognition.

I guess I'll always be looking for the same headline as Jay Leno: "Psychic Wins Lottery."

LOL

Alright cool.. I understand.

[superstitious]

I'm not sure if you have fielded this question or not, but here goes. What is/are your opinion(s) on agnosticism? Do you find agnostic points of view to be merely indecisive? Does this make a person any less than one who commits either way?