Was Buddha an atheist?

Amadeus · Dec 14, 2014

JP Cusick said:
The problem today is that Atheist and Atheism is so very dry and void that the Atheist are starving for relief and the teaching of the Buddha give the Atheist a point of relief to their tired out and empty mentality, and I see that as okay because the Buddha teachings are a blessing to anyone that embraces it.

Atheism is what it is. A disbelief in gods. That is not a tired out and empty mentality. It is a valid belief and substantiated opinion. And whatever you call it, atheism has existed for more than 150 years, since people have long not believed in gods.

JP Cusick · Dec 14, 2014

RabidAlpaca said:
Just because you're too weak to function without a god doesn't mean everyone is. Buddhism does not have a god and you are extremely ignorant.

I do see a twisted point in that because many people today do have the idea that the knowledge of God is a weakness, and that false perception is pushed onto our society by schools and TV and everywhere, but it is still wrong.

You are correct that Buddhism does not have to have a God or the God, but it will always be defective and inadequate for any person so long as God is excluded.

The fact is that people are made strong by the knowledge of God and we can prove that to our self personally and there are some huge examples in history which declare the strength in the knowledge of God.

A few examples:
1) President Lincoln who continued through the Civil War because he saw God in the works.
2) The Mahatma Gandhi who used the tools of God to end Colonialism and to free his Country and in to free other Countries too.
3) Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights marches that had their foundation in their improved version of Christianity.
4) The Islamic faith today that defies the evil empire of Western Imperialism - as God (Allah) is their strength.
====

And as a counter example of real weakness based on a rejection of God:
1) Broken families, abortions, highest divorce rate, licentiousness, etc.
2) Losing wars based on lies, that we do torture, that we the USA are the warmongers of the planet earth based on our rejection of Godly knowledge.
3) Our greed, unjust unemployment and underemployment, failure to pay a living wage, massive poverty in the midst of selfish wealth, and etc.
4) Suicides, homicides, racial prejudice, social injustice, hopelessness, and so much more.
====

The claim that the knowledge of God is a weakness is a dilution pushed onto our society and as such our society keeps getting weaker and weaker by NOT having that rightful knowledge of God.

Manny · Dec 14, 2014

JP Cusick said:
A few examples:
1) President Lincoln who continued through the Civil War because he saw God in the works.
2) The Mahatma Gandhi who used the tools of God to end Colonialism and to free his Country and in to free other Countries too.
3) Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights marches that had their foundation in their improved version of Christianity.
4) The Islamic faith today that defies the evil empire of Western Imperialism - as God (Allah) is their strength.

One of my personal favourites is Muhammad Ali defeating George Foreman...

Manny · Dec 14, 2014

Jerry said:
The many gods surrounding the culture represent aspects on the self when they don't represent personified natural forces, and so to invoke a god is to invoke a Jungian archetype of the human psyche.

When an object is held in reverence, or prayed to, how is that psychologically different from revering and praying to a god. Sounds like semantics, or something to help you feel good about accepting it, like an excuse.

What about these guys-
Amitābha is a celestial buddha described in the scriptures of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism. Amitābha is known for his longevity attribute, magnetising red fire element, the aggregate of discernment, pure perception and the deep awareness of uniqueness of phenomena. According to these scriptures, Amitābha possesses infinite merits resulting from good deeds over countless past lives as a bodhisattva named Dharmakāra. "Amitābha" is translatable as "Infinite Light," hence Amitābha is also called "The Buddha of Immeasurable Life and Light".

According to the Larger Sūtra of Immeasurable Life, Amitābha was, in very ancient times and possibly in another system of worlds, a monk named Dharmakāra. He resolved to become a buddha and so to come into possession of a realm existing in the primordial universe outside of ordinary reality, produced by a buddha's merit) possessed of many perfections. These resolutions were expressed in his forty-eight vows, which set out the type of buddha-field Dharmakāra aspired to create, the conditions under which beings might be born into that world, and what kind of beings they would be when reborn there.
Reborn in another system of worlds, existing outside of ordinary reality? Possessed of many perfections... doesn't sound like ordinary human beings living in the reality we know.

Vairocana Buddha is sometimes called the primordial Buddha or supreme Buddha. He represents the wisdom of shunyata, "emptiness." He is considered a personification of the dharmakaya -- everything, unmanifested, free of characteristics and distinctions. When the Dhyani Buddhas are pictured together in a mandala, Vairocana is at the center.

Vairocana is white, representing all colors, and his his symbol is the Dharma wheel. His hand mudra represents the turning of the wheel. He is associated with the first skandha, form. Meditation on Vairocana vanquishes ignorance.

How is it not like Krishna or other Hindu "gods" that are seen as personifications of some aspect of reality.

Mahayana Buddhism includes belief in numerous "celestial Buddhas" who have attained enlightenment and now dwell in the heavens or various Paradises. Because of their enlightened state, Buddhas are generally believed to be unapproachable, but there are still perceived benefits to venerating or meditating on them and their accomplishments. Celestial Buddhas,especially the Five Dhyani Buddhas, play a major role in the Tibetan and Tantric forms of Buddhism.

If it makes you feel better not to call them gods, or the veneration there of, that's ok.

JP Cusick · Dec 15, 2014

Amadeus said:
Atheism is what it is. A disbelief in gods. That is not a tired out and empty mentality. It is a valid belief and substantiated opinion. And whatever you call it, atheism has existed for more than 150 years, since people have long not believed in gods.

Atheism has no substance and that is an obvious fact and not an opinion.

Atheism has no commandments, no principles, no conditions of merit, as it is just a negative belief, and by definition its negative belief is based on nothing.

Link = American Atheist - utterly confused definition.

This is why when debating about Buddhism then the Atheist can not understand the meaning of "Truth" as in the Noble Truths because Atheist have no concept of honesty, in that they have no commandment of thou shalt not lie or that the Truth must be held in high esteem, because an Atheist is free to lie or cheat or whatever they feel inclined to.

As for one like myself then I have huge guiding principles of to seek the truth and the truth will set us free and the TRUTH is an expression of God and etc etc.

That is why the Atheist view the Buddha giving the "Noble Truths" as just being = Noble Suggestions or Noble Opinions because the truth as an absolute value is not understood by the deficient Atheist mentality.

===============================================

Manny said:
One of my personal favourites is Muhammad Ali defeating George Foreman...

I had not thought of that one, but I do agree with it as a valid example.

Amadeus · Dec 15, 2014

JP Cusick said:
Atheism has no substance and that is an obvious fact and not an opinion.

Are you saying that disbelief in gods is not a substantive opinion and position?

This is why when debating about Buddhism then the Atheist can not understand the meaning of "Truth" as in the Noble Truths because Atheist have no concept of honesty, in that they have no commandment of thou shalt not lie or that the Truth must be held in high esteem, because an Atheist is free to lie or cheat or whatever they feel inclined to.

So is anyone who follows any religion. Some of the biggest liars and cheaters or whatever are the biggest adherents to religion.

As for one like myself then I have huge guiding principles of to seek the truth and the truth will set us free and the TRUTH is an expression of God and etc etc.

Your truth is an expression of God, mine isn't and it's just as substantive as yours. I defy you to prove otherwise.

That is why the Atheist view the Buddha giving the "Noble Truths" as just being = Noble Suggestions or Noble Opinions because the truth as an absolute value is not understood by the deficient Atheist mentality.

There is nothing about the Four Noble Truths that require an allegiance to or belief in gods. You apparently don't know half has much as you think.

anatta · Dec 16, 2014

Manny said:
When an object is held in reverence, or prayed to, how is that psychologically different from revering and praying to a god. Sounds like semantics, or something to help you feel good about accepting it, like an excuse.

What about these guys-
Amitābha is a celestial buddha described in the scriptures of the Mahāyāna school of Buddhism. Amitābha is known for his longevity attribute, magnetising red fire element, the aggregate of discernment, pure perception and the deep awareness of uniqueness of phenomena. According to these scriptures, Amitābha possesses infinite merits resulting from good deeds over countless past lives as a bodhisattva named Dharmakāra. "Amitābha" is translatable as "Infinite Light," hence Amitābha is also called "The Buddha of Immeasurable Life and Light".

According to the Larger Sūtra of Immeasurable Life, Amitābha was, in very ancient times and possibly in another system of worlds, a monk named Dharmakāra. He resolved to become a buddha and so to come into possession of a realm existing in the primordial universe outside of ordinary reality, produced by a buddha's merit) possessed of many perfections. These resolutions were expressed in his forty-eight vows, which set out the type of buddha-field Dharmakāra aspired to create, the conditions under which beings might be born into that world, and what kind of beings they would be when reborn there.
Reborn in another system of worlds, existing outside of ordinary reality? Possessed of many perfections... doesn't sound like ordinary human beings living in the reality we know.

Vairocana Buddha is sometimes called the primordial Buddha or supreme Buddha. He represents the wisdom of shunyata, "emptiness." He is considered a personification of the dharmakaya -- everything, unmanifested, free of characteristics and distinctions. When the Dhyani Buddhas are pictured together in a mandala, Vairocana is at the center.

Vairocana is white, representing all colors, and his his symbol is the Dharma wheel. His hand mudra represents the turning of the wheel. He is associated with the first skandha, form. Meditation on Vairocana vanquishes ignorance.

How is it not like Krishna or other Hindu "gods" that are seen as personifications of some aspect of reality.

Mahayana Buddhism includes belief in numerous "celestial Buddhas" who have attained enlightenment and now dwell in the heavens or various Paradises. Because of their enlightened state, Buddhas are generally believed to be unapproachable, but there are still perceived benefits to venerating or meditating on them and their accomplishments. Celestial Buddhas,especially the Five Dhyani Buddhas, play a major role in the Tibetan and Tantric forms of Buddhism.

If it makes you feel better not to call them gods, or the veneration there of, that's ok.

I believe Amita is actually a bodhisattva.

Mahayana Buddhists, on the other hand, hope to become not arhats but boddhisatvas, saints who have become enlightened but who unselfishly delay nirvana to help others attain it as well, as the Buddha did. Perhaps more significantly for one who would choose between the paths, Mahayana Buddhists teach that enlightenment can be attained in a single lifetime, and this can be accomplished even by a layperson. The various subdivisions within the Mahayana tradition, such as Zen, Nichiren, and Pure Land, promote different ways of attaining this goal, but all are agreed that it can be attained in a single lifetime by anyone who puts his or her mind (and sometimes body) to it. The Mahayana form of Buddhism tends to be more religious in nature than its Theravadan counterpart. It often includes veneration of celestial beings, Buddhas and boddhisatvas, ceremonies, religious rituals, magical rites, and the use of icons, images, and other sacred objects. The role of such religious elements varies, however: it is central to Tibetan/Tantric Buddhism, but is highly discouraged by Zen practitioners, who have been known to burn statues of the Buddha to demonstrate their unimportance - See more at: Mahayana Buddhism - ReligionFacts

Manny · Dec 16, 2014

annata said:
I believe Amita is actually a bodhisattva.

Thanks for posting.
It is my opinion that Zen is the more pure form of Buddhism, as it really does seem that Zen has no gods. Zen is highly specialized however, compared to Buddhism, in that Zen is practiced primarily by monks/ devotees while Buddhism is more widespread among the public. For this reason there are many Buddhist 'sects' or cults that have differing views, most likely for reasons which JP Cusick elucidated- that ordinary human beings have an innate need to seek something higher than themselves.
I still want to know more about who or what the celestial Buddhas are. I see your post includes information about 'magic' etc., does not seem like something an atheist would want to believe.

anatta · Dec 16, 2014

Manny said:
Thanks for posting.
It is my opinion that Zen is the more pure form of Buddhism, as it really does seem that Zen has no gods. Zen is highly specialized however, compared to Buddhism, in that Zen is practiced primarily by monks/ devotees while Buddhism is more widespread among the public. For this reason there are many Buddhist 'sects' or cults that have differing views, most likely for reasons which JP Cusick elucidated- that ordinary human beings have an innate need to seek something higher than themselves.
I still want to know more about who or what the celestial Buddhas are. I see your post includes information about 'magic' etc., does not seem like something an atheist would want to believe.

I'm no where near an expert just a devotee. I do believe Buddhism has value as religion and philosophy of life - the 4 Noble Truths stand firm over time,
and if you read that Kalama Sutta Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas you can see it's responsive to adoration of gods ( Brahmin/vedas) .
It's Buddha's words (sutta is discourse by Buddha)..read that and you can see whatever else is layered over the sutta it's clear that Buddha was saying
"if there is an afterlife, this is worthy, if not this is also worthy for this life" ( my words)

Enlightenment is akin to the flame above the candle; pure energy not tied to the earth ( flame not tied to the candle).
If you think someone can self perfect ( the 8 fold noble path shows the Way) then you might be amendable to the religion.
If not....well read the sutta.

Thanks for asking, hope I responded in a pertinent manner

Manny · Dec 16, 2014

annata said:
I do believe Buddhism has value as religion and philosophy of life

Same here.

anatta · Dec 16, 2014

Index of Suttas

JP Cusick · Dec 16, 2014

Amadeus said:
Are you saying that disbelief in gods is not a substantive opinion and position?

Of course it is not substantial - it is a one line (two words) of negativity - as in Atheist means = no God.

There is no doctrine, no commandment, no book, no scripture, no reality, and thereby no substance.

It would be like saying that one does not believe in Santa Claus, well there is no substance in that.
Since Atheist claim that there is no God then Santa Claus is a fitting negative belief about a person or thing which is not real.

The problem for Atheist is that they do see and feel substance because claiming "no God" then that gives them a license to sin and to do evil and to break proper restraints so it just feels like substance when there is none.

Of course an Atheist will have the arrogance and self righteousness and loss of integrity - if one wants to call that as substance?

Amadeus said:
So is anyone who follows any religion. Some of the biggest liars and cheaters or whatever are the biggest adherents to religion.

Your words do not align correctly.

The religions tell people not to lie or cheat or commit evils so it can not be as you claim an "adherent" doing those things.

Definition - Adherence.

People who break the rules are not the adherents, and definitely not the biggest adherents.

Those who lie or cheat or do evil are called the sinners.

Amadeus said:
Your truth is an expression of God, mine isn't and it's just as substantive as yours. I defy you to prove otherwise.

One way is in science where the Atheist tend to cling, so the "Big Bang" is an obvious truth that there really was a Creation Day where time began and where life began. This is a truth which is an expression of God. While the Atheist on that same TRUTH can only say without substance their two words = no God.

In Evolution where every thing in life is marching forward and improving every day is another TRUTH which is a expression of God. While the Atheist on that same TRUTH can only say without substance their two words = no God.

The one has substance while the other does not.

Religious people include the wonders of God and thereby substance, while the Atheist say the same things except denying God and thereby removing the substance.

Amadeus said:
There is nothing about the Four Noble Truths that require an allegiance to or belief in gods. You apparently don't know half has much as you think.

The requirement is to believe in the TRUTH, and the TRUTH to an Atheist means a theory or supposition or a fact, but to a person who knows about the reality of God then the TRUTH has a far more intensive meaning and a more absolute meaning as in absolute truth.

The 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha are based on the absolute Truth.

You can do well with the Truths without God, but without God then the truth will always have a defect and a lacking and a coming up short.

Perotista · Dec 16, 2014

JP Cusick said:
Of course it is not substantial - it is a one line (two words) of negativity - as in Atheist means = no God.

There is no doctrine, no commandment, no book, no scripture, no reality, and thereby no substance.

It would be like saying that one does not believe in Santa Claus, well there is no substance in that.
Since Atheist claim that there is no God then Santa Claus is a fitting negative belief about a person or thing which is not real.

The problem for Atheist is that they do see and feel substance because claiming "no God" then that gives them a license to sin and to do evil and to break proper restraints so it just feels like substance when there is none.

Of course an Atheist will have the arrogance and self righteousness and loss of integrity - if one wants to call that as substance?

Your words do not align correctly.

The religions tell people not to lie or cheat or commit evils so it can not be as you claim an "adherent" doing those things.

Definition - Adherence.

People who break the rules are not the adherents, and definitely not the biggest adherents.

Those who lie or cheat or do evil are called the sinners.

One way is in science where the Atheist tend to cling, so the "Big Bang" is an obvious truth that there really was a Creation Day where time began and where life began. This is a truth which is an expression of God. While the Atheist on that same TRUTH can only say without substance their two words = no God.

In Evolution where every thing in life is marching forward and improving every day is another TRUTH which is a expression of God. While the Atheist on that same TRUTH can only say without substance their two words = no God.

The one has substance while the other does not.

Religious people include the wonders of God and thereby substance, while the Atheist say the same things except denying God and thereby removing the substance.

The requirement is to believe in the TRUTH, and the TRUTH to an Atheist means a theory or supposition or a fact, but to a person who knows about the reality of God then the TRUTH has a far more intensive meaning and a more absolute meaning as in absolute truth.

The 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha are based on the absolute Truth.

You can do well with the Truths without God, but without God then the truth will always have a defect and a lacking and a coming up short.

I am not sure I follow you on the last portion of your post. The Four Noble Truths, 1. Life means suffering, 2. The origins of suffering is attachment, 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable and 4. The path to the cessation of suffering is the 8 fold path. No god.

Another teaching is the impermanence of all things. This would include god, the earth, the universe etc.

Amadeus · Dec 16, 2014

JP Cusick said:
Of course it is not substantial - it is a one line (two words) of negativity - as in Atheist means = no God.

There is no doctrine, no commandment, no book, no scripture, no reality, and thereby no substance.

So you need a bunch of theistic gobbledegook to be substantive? Quantity is not quality.

The problem for Atheist is that they do see and feel substance because claiming "no God" then that gives them a license to sin and to do evil and to break proper restraints so it just feels like substance when there is none.

Actually, no. I place my atheistic morality and ethics on a higher level than that of a theist, because I am accountable for my own actions -- I am not accountable to (and then forgiven by) a supernatural being. I do not need a two thousand year old book to tell me the difference between right and wrong. This is something I've learned on my own.

The religions tell people not to lie or cheat or commit evils so it can not be as you claim an "adherent" doing those things.

Actually, again, no. You can lie and cheat and steal and STILL be an adherent to Christianity. All you have to do is repent and believe in Jesus, and you are forgiven. Atheists don't have that luxury.

People who break the rules are not the adherents, and definitely not the biggest adherents.

Those who lie or cheat or do evil are called the sinners.

You clearly don't know the first thing about Christianity and sin. And you call yourself Mr. Know-It-All?

The 4 Noble Truths of the Buddha are based on the absolute Truth.

Explain.

You can do well with the Truths without God, but without God then the truth will always have a defect and a lacking and a coming up short.

There is an empirical truth and a religious truth. I recall nowhere in Buddhist teachings where Gautama says that he is speaking for or channeling God.

JP Cusick · Dec 17, 2014

Perotista said:
I am not sure I follow you on the last portion of your post. The Four Noble Truths, 1. Life means suffering, 2. The origins of suffering is attachment, 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable and 4. The path to the cessation of suffering is the 8 fold path. No god.

Another teaching is the impermanence of all things. This would include god, the earth, the universe etc.

There is no impermanence to the Truth or to God. So a permanent truth is an absolute truth.

That is what you are missing is the title being = The Noble Truths:

Next comes the 1st then 2nd then 3rd then 4th truths underneath the Noble Truths.

The name has meaning too, as in the "Noble Truths" is a message in itself, as like it is the name of all 4 combined.

QUOTE: "The requirement is to believe in the TRUTH, and the TRUTH to an Atheist means a theory or supposition or a fact, but to a person who knows about the reality of God then the TRUTH has a far more intensive meaning and a more absolute meaning as in absolute truth."

The title of "The Noble Truths" or "The 4 Noble Truths" is saying that the following 4 are a part of that over ruling TRUTH.

I believe that is where you are missing my point.

=========================================

JP Cusick · Dec 17, 2014

Amadeus said:
So you need a bunch of theistic gobbledegook to be substantive? Quantity is not quality.

There can not be quality without substance.

You can not claim to have better quality when you have nothing - have no substance.

Atheism is just a negative belief in nothing - Atheism just means no-God.

Both you and I can teach or preach the "Big Bang" except you teach "no God" which adds nothing to that subject, but when I proclaim the "Big Bang" as proof of a Creation Day and thereby one more proof of God then I am introducing a huge amount of substance into that scientific discussion.

My position has the better quality because the knowledge of God is adding the substance, while Atheism is simply denying substance.

Amadeus said:
Actually, no. I place my atheistic morality and ethics on a higher level than that of a theist, because I am accountable for my own actions -- I am not accountable to (and then forgiven by) a supernatural being. I do not need a two thousand year old book to tell me the difference between right and wrong. This is something I've learned on my own.

When I have scriptures and books that tell me right from wrong then I have very real boundaries on my self and THAT makes me as truly accountable in extreme.

You are not accountable except to your self, so in cases where you see a lie as right then there you go, and if you see stealing as wrong then you restrain but maybe not, and if you want to pay for an abortion then you can, or you join the military as a warmonger then it depends if you see it as right or wrong because it is your own decision, or to sleep with the spouse of your best friend is just another choice, so everything with an Atheist is thereby arbitrary and capricious just being based on however you might feel at any given time.

That is really what is meant by being "self righteous" in that your self decides what is right or wrong based on your own whims and your emotions in disregard of the higher standards throughout humanity.

When I based my righteousness on scriptures and on laws and on principles then it is NOT my self being righteous.

Amadeus said:
Actually, again, no. You can lie and cheat and steal and STILL be an adherent to Christianity. All you have to do is repent and believe in Jesus, and you are forgiven. Atheists don't have that luxury.

Of course Atheist have that same "luxury" and any Atheist will lie or cheat or steal just as will any other person.

Atheist are not superior people to Christians.

The real problem is that people of all kinds simply do not understand what it means to repent and of course they do not repent whether they claim it or not.

If any person repents correctly then they are to make amends to those they harmed and if any person (Atheist or Christian or otherwise) does that then they will reap the benefits in full as it works wonders when done correctly.

Reference: "first be reconciled to thy brother" Matthew 5:24

Amadeus said:
Explain.

See my reply above to "Perotista".

The title of "The 4 Noble Truths" has meaning of itself in that the 4 truths are subordinate to the overall.

Amadeus said:
There is an empirical truth and a religious truth. I recall nowhere in Buddhist teachings where Gautama says that he is speaking for or channeling God.

The word "Truth" is the given connection to God.

With God there are absolute truths, but without God then any Truth is subject to change or decay or impermanence.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein

Amadeus · Dec 17, 2014

JP Cusick said:
Both you and I can teach or preach the "Big Bang" except you teach "no God" which adds nothing to that subject, but when I proclaim the "Big Bang" as proof of a Creation Day and thereby one more proof of God then I am introducing a huge amount of substance into that scientific discussion.

Except that attributing the "Big Bang" to God is not a substantive argument. It is not even an argument. It is simply adding "God" to the "Big Bang". Whereas atheism channels science to understand the nature of reality, theists ultimately say "God did it". Which is really the more substantive argument?

When I have scriptures and books that tell me right from wrong then I have very real boundaries on my self and THAT makes me as truly accountable in extreme.

The Bible tells you that you can be forgiven for ALL if you repent and accept Jesus, except possibly for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (the only unforgivable sin). The Bible does not limit you in how many times you can repent.

You are not accountable except to your self

I'm accountable to myself, my family, my friends, and to society. I am not accountable to your god, just as I am not accountable to Athena or Thor.

That is really what is meant by being "self righteous" in that your self decides what is right or wrong based on your own whims and your emotions in disregard of the higher standards throughout humanity.

Ultimately, you are not accountable to even your god, since I know you don't believe that your God will punish you in any significant way for transgressing against the Bible.

When I based my righteousness on scriptures and on laws and on principles then it is NOT my self being righteous.

Sure you are. You are being righteous to what you believe to be right (the Bible). That is being self-righteous.

If any person repents correctly then they are to make amends to those they harmed and if any person (Atheist or Christian or otherwise) does that then they will reap the benefits in full as it works wonders when done correctly.

An atheist who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit cannot repent and cannot be forgiven.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~ Albert Einstein

"Science is interesting and if you don't agree, f*ck off." - Richard Dawkins

Amadeus · Dec 17, 2014

JP Cusick said:
There is no impermanence to the Truth or to God. So a permanent truth is an absolute truth.

That is what you are missing is the title being = The Noble Truths:

Next comes the 1st then 2nd then 3rd then 4th truths underneath the Noble Truths.

The name has meaning too, as in the "Noble Truths" is a message in itself, as like it is the name of all 4 combined.

QUOTE: "The requirement is to believe in the TRUTH, and the TRUTH to an Atheist means a theory or supposition or a fact, but to a person who knows about the reality of God then the TRUTH has a far more intensive meaning and a more absolute meaning as in absolute truth."

The title of "The Noble Truths" or "The 4 Noble Truths" is saying that the following 4 are a part of that over ruling TRUTH.

I believe that is where you are missing my point.

Do you actually think you're fooling anyone with this argument?

anatta · Dec 17, 2014

There is no static being," says Heraclitus, "no unchanging substratum. Change, movement, is Lord of the Universe.
Everything is in a state of becoming, of continual flux (Panta Rhei)."

He continues: "You cannot step twice into the same river; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you

The Three Basic Facts of Existence: I. Impermanence (Anicca)

Impermanent are all component things,
They arise and cease, that is their nature:
They come into being and pass away,
Release from them is bliss supreme

Manny · Dec 17, 2014

"Nothing is true"
"This statement is false"

JP Cusick · Dec 17, 2014

Amadeus said:
Do you actually think you're fooling anyone with this argument?

Well no - I am not trying to fool anyone.

I really do hope that people give my words proper judgements.

Amadeus said:
Except that attributing the "Big Bang" to God is not a substantive argument. It is not even an argument. It is simply adding "God" to the "Big Bang". Whereas atheism channels science to understand the nature of reality, theists ultimately say "God did it". Which is really the more substantive argument?

The Big-Bang is a scientific proof of an origin, of an original creation, of a creation day, and thereby it is scientific evidence for the existence of a real Creator - proof of God.

That is the substance indeed.

Amadeus said:
The Bible tells you that you can be forgiven for ALL if you repent and accept Jesus, except possibly for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (the only unforgivable sin). The Bible does not limit you in how many times you can repent.

This troubles me that claiming to be Atheist and yet you preach the attributes of a God.

What you are really saying is just a script from a Baptist or Pentecostal doctrine and they are not correct and so your claims as above are not true either.

I am not a Methodist or a Presbyterian or whatever church you got that doctrine from, so why would you preach that rubbish?

If you go back to what I said in posting #66 then this = Reference: "first be reconciled to thy brother" Matthew 5:24

You are here preaching a different Gospel then am I, and you are correct not to believe that stuff because that stuff is wrong, but I do not say that Protestant orthodox rubbish.

I am talking about God and a little about Jesus but I am not preaching Christianity.

Amadeus said:
Ultimately, you are not accountable to even your god, since I know you don't believe that your God will punish you in any significant way for transgressing against the Bible.

That really is not accurate for me.

My finding is that we all including myself will "reap what we sow" and that happens or starts to happen immediately.

But that does not mean transgressing the Bible (as you say) because we get results by either following the truth or by breaking the truth.

That is the point of the Noble Truths in that if anyone (not just Buddhist but anyone) violates the truth then they pay, and if anyone aligns with the truth then they benefit, and there is lots of middle ground.

Amadeus said:
Sure you are. You are being righteous to what you believe to be right (the Bible). That is being self-righteous.

No, it is okay to be right, and it is great to be right, and the idea is to be right, and the virtue is to be righteous.

I looked it up in dictionaries and they give just a one-sided perspective in defining self righteous from the view of the accusers, and in that view then you might be correct to view a righteous person as being self righteous when they are in the right or not because in that view it is more of being just an accusation.

You might view me telling that God is real as me being self righteous when in fact I am right, so in that case then it would not be an insult to me.

But when it is defined correctly from the person who is actually being self righteous then they are trying to be right based on their own self generated judgement of right from wrong and thereby that kind of righteousness is being self righteous in the dishonorable form.

In example: The Qur'an says to "give warning to thy enemy first" but I do not want to give the warning, so I give the warning grudgingly as I am just doing as I am told to do, and thereby the Qur'an is righteous while I am just doing right and I am being righteous but it is not done based on my self so it is not being self righteous.

If I am just doing or preaching as I am told to do, then the one who tells it to me is the one being righteous and not my self.

Amadeus said:
An atheist who has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit cannot repent and cannot be forgiven.

You get that religious brainwashing from some place, but not from me.

If I must preach then my own understanding is that every person gets forgiven and gets saved and not even one rotten sinful sheep gets left out as every person gets saved in the end. That was the true teaching of Jesus on the cross that Jesus paid the penalty in full and paid it for every person and the deed is done.

Amadeus said:
"Science is interesting and if you don't agree, f*ck off." - Richard Dawkins

I do agree that science is interesting and I love it.

My own point would be that science is even more interesting when we see the truth of God included.

Amadeus · Dec 18, 2014

JP Cusick said:
I really do hope that people give my words proper judgements.

You basically said that by using the word "truth", Buddha was referencing God. Which is a load of baloney. It's a argument based on your own theory.

The Big-Bang is a scientific proof of an origin, of an original creation, of a creation day, and thereby it is scientific evidence for the existence of a real Creator - proof of God.

That is the substance indeed.

So your idea of substance is to hijack a non-religious argument and put "God did it" in front of it. Nice.

I am talking about God and a little about Jesus but I am not preaching Christianity.

So where are you getting the scripture that you cite as your evidence for substance?

My finding is that we all including myself will "reap what we sow" and that happens or starts to happen immediately.

Which ultimately means that you are accountable to yourself. God is not required, unless you're saying that God immediately starts playing minute games with you the moment you sow.

That is the point of the Noble Truths in that if anyone (not just Buddhist but anyone) violates the truth then they pay, and if anyone aligns with the truth then they benefit, and there is lots of middle ground.

Or maybe the Noble Truths apply to Buddha's personal experiences -- that they are his truths -- and are not a reference to the divine.

You might view me telling that God is real as me being self righteous when in fact I am right, so in that case then it would not be an insult to me.

If I am just doing or preaching as I am told to do, then the one who tells it to me is the one being righteous and not my self.

What you view as truth is really just an opinion. It is based on your experience with the whatever scripture you follow. It is a religious opinion, and is of no more value than an atheistic opinion.

Hiding behind religious dogma doesn't make your opinion any more valid or less self-righteous.

My own point would be that science is even more interesting when we see the truth of God included.

My opinion is that science is a method of understanding natural phenomena and is diametrically opposed to supernatural supposition.

JP Cusick · Dec 18, 2014

Amadeus said:
You basically said that by using the word "truth", Buddha was referencing God. It's a argument based on your own theory.

I am happy to have that as my own theory, and it has some very strong basis.

As like in the Christian Bible it tells that:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32
"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4:24
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Thereby the 4 Noble Truths are an expression of the same thing = TRUTH.

Amadeus said:
So your idea of substance is to hijack a non-religious argument and put "God did it" in front of it. Nice.

The "Big-Bang" is NOT a non-religious argument (as you call it) because explaining and understanding the Big-Bang / Creation Day is now a discussion about reality.

Atheist want to exclude God in that, but it is hard to exclude the blatantly obvious.

Amadeus said:
So where are you getting the scripture that you cite as your evidence for substance?

In this particular case then I view the 4 Noble Truths given by the Buddha are scriptures, and thereby as being scriptural evidence of substance.

When I say God then I do not mean the Christian only God but the God of everyone and of everything.

Amadeus said:
Which ultimately means that you are accountable to yourself. God is not required, unless you're saying that God immediately starts playing minute games with you the moment you sow.

I do not see it as God playing games but still yes we reap or start to reap immediately whatever we sow.

As example: When one tells a lie then they immediately become a liar, and that effect last a long time unless and or until the person properly repents including the making of amends. The same in murdering then one becomes a murderer instantly and it really does hurt and it is a type of instantaneous curse.

And it is not all negative.

As in when one does a TRUTH then the person becomes a better person, and when we do charity or compassion or express love then we instantaneously reap what we sow.

It is not really that God is looking over our shoulders but that the process is built into the system as it is a part of life and of living, which we thereby called as a TRUTH.

Amadeus said:
Or maybe the Noble Truths apply to Buddha's personal experiences -- that they are his truths -- and are not a reference to the divine.

You can put those kind of limits onto the truth(s) but I find it is as just a limitation onto your self and it only limits your self, while I reject that limitation.

The Buddha did base his truths on his own experiences, and based on his own research and his studying, but I believe that the Buddha was inspired, or more certainly his Noble Truths were inspired or inspiration.

If you want to say or believe that it did not come from God (or divine) then that is your loss and not mine.

Amadeus said:
What you view as truth is really just an opinion. It is based on your experience with the whatever scripture you follow. It is a religious opinion, and is of no more value than an atheistic opinion.

Hiding behind religious dogma doesn't make your opinion any more valid or less self-righteous.

I do not see mine as opinion or as belief because I have tested mine and put it into practice and I find mine to be true and known.

The reality of God is a thing that I know about and it is not a belief or opinion of mine.

You call that as belief or opinion and you are mistaken.

The same with the 4 Noble Truths in that I know that they are real and effective and empowering and it is not my belief or opinion as I know it to be real.

Amadeus said:
My opinion is that science is a method of understanding natural phenomena and is diametrically opposed to supernatural supposition.

It depends on how one defines supernatural - and I am not picking on words.

As like the Big-Bang is a scientific proof of God, and the Big-Bang is really a huge miracle, and science declares that the Big-Bang is not supernatural, and that means the Creation Day is not supernatural.

Our own simple solar system with the earth spinning at high speed being held perfectly by invisible powers / invisible forces which happens to be a far bigger miracle than is anything told in the Bible or in any other scriptures, and yet this too is not supernatural.

Having abundant life on earth is extraordinary and yet it is not supernatural.

As such the belief that God is supernatural is just not sound and not accurate.

Amadeus · Dec 18, 2014

JP Cusick said:
I am happy to have that as my own theory, and it has some very strong basis.

It's your argument based on your theory.

The "Big-Bang" is NOT a non-religious argument (as you call it) because explaining and understanding the Big-Bang / Creation Day is now a discussion about reality.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory. Religion can try to usurp it all it likes, it is based on empirical observation, not religion or theism.

Atheist want to exclude God in that, but it is hard to exclude the blatantly obvious.

Where is it blatantly obvious?

In this particular case then I view the 4 Noble Truths given by the Buddha are scriptures, and thereby as being scriptural evidence of substance.

Yes, there is substance in Buddhist teachings. Just not relating to God.

As example: When one tells a lie then they immediately become a liar, and that effect last a long time unless and or until the person properly repents including the making of amends. The same in murdering then one becomes a murderer instantly and it really does hurt and it is a type of instantaneous curse.

How is this different from an atheist being a liar or a murderer?

It is not really that God is looking over our shoulders but that the process is built into the system as it is a part of life and of living, which we thereby called as a TRUTH.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

You can put those kind of limits onto the truth(s) but I find it is as just a limitation onto your self and it only limits your self, while I reject that limitation.

There you go, being self-righteous again. You don't accept it and you reject it. Is there any aspect of your theism that isn't ultimately about you?

As like the Big-Bang is a scientific proof of God, and the Big-Bang is really a huge miracle, and science declares that the Big-Bang is not supernatural, and that means the Creation Day is not supernatural.

The Big Bang is not supernatural, and is not scientific proof that God exists. A miracle is supernatural. Like a virgin birth. That is God altering the natural order to influence his will. God is by definition a supernatural being.

Our own simple solar system with the earth spinning at high speed being held perfectly by invisible powers / invisible forces which happens to be a far bigger miracle than is anything told in the Bible or in any other scriptures, and yet this too is not supernatural.

I'm afraid we're not speaking the same language. Just because something exists on a grand scale does not make it a miracle.

My wishing for a lollipop and God spontaneously materializing a lollipop in my hand -- out of thin air -- is an act of supernatural power INFINITELY greater than the creation of our solar system over the course of billions of years.

JP Cusick · Dec 19, 2014

Amadeus said:
It's your argument based on your theory.

That is okay, as I am the one discussing the topic here so yes I give my own beliefs and opinions and everything is my own.

Is that some kind of obstacle for you?

Amadeus said:
How is this different from an atheist being a liar or a murderer?

There is no difference, and I would never make any such distinction.

Of course every person of any kind or any persuasion is subject to the very real and active truth that we reap what we sow, and there is no getting around that.

I do not know how you got the idea that I said or implied that it would be different for an Atheist as it applies to every person throughout humanity and beyond.

It is one of those things that gets called as an absolute truth, which was also the point of the 4 Noble Truths in that they apply to every person with no exceptions.

If it did not apply to everyone then it would not be a Truth (capital T).

Amadeus said:
The Big Bang is not supernatural, and is not scientific proof that God exists. A miracle is supernatural. Like a virgin birth. That is God altering the natural order to influence his will. God is by definition a supernatural being.

That just means that you have the definition wrong.

When your definition is that there is no supernatural God - then to that I do agree.

As I keep trying to point out - I am not orthodox.

If the entire Bible is a fake and Jesus never lived and all religion is just a bunch of hooey then that would not change the reality that there is a real God.

The Big-Bang is evidence of a Creation and thereby a Creator, but it is NOT evidence for Jesus or for Christianity or for there being a Heaven or Hell as it is just a proof of a Creator and nothing else.

In fact we may yet find out that God is really some horrible thing? as we really do not know all of the particulars.

The "virgin birth" is just a Christian doctrine which is obviously untrue, just as is a burning Hell is just nonsense, but the God thing is real.

Einstein had this problem as when Einstein would point out God then religious people would jump onto the words of Einstein as if it were an endorsement of their own religious ideas which he was not doing, while Einstein was only referring to a scientific view of God and not a religious version of God.

Amadeus said:
I'm afraid we're not speaking the same language. Just because something exists on a grand scale does not make it a miracle.

My wishing for a lollipop and God spontaneously materializing a lollipop in my hand -- out of thin air -- is an act of supernatural power INFINITELY greater than the creation of our solar system over the course of billions of years.

Yes we have a different language.

Flying use to be a miracle and now it is better known.
Healing the sick use to be a miracle and now we do that better.
The creation use to be a miracle and now we know it as the Big-Bang.
Having a baby is still a miracle even though we know it to be a biological function.

You (not I) are making a mistake by viewing God as supernatural, because that is just religious nonsense and not science.

In science then God is the very reality of natural.

Was Buddha an atheist?

Chews the Cud

The Expert

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

The Expert

Chews the Cud

Nay Sayer

Nay Sayer

The Expert

Chews the Cud

The Expert

The Expert

Chews the Cud

Chews the Cud

Nay Sayer

The Expert

Chews the Cud

The Expert

Chews the Cud

The Expert