If atheism is a 'lack of a position', then it can't be the default position

[buddhist]

And you'd have to understand the law of non-contradiction.

I've met plenty of Buddhists who were capable of logical thought, so I'm going to have to take your suggestion that Buddhism somehow requires its adherents to reject the laws of logic with a grain of salt.

It hinges on choice. Absence of choice is absence of attachment, both of which are said to result in the bliss of nibbana.

The choice to disbelieve is a active attachment towards disbelief (or in other words, an active rejection of belief). This exists in the realm of samsara, because a choice was made.

The third option is no choice, and thus no attachment nor rejection. I doubt most Buddhists have explored this intricacy of Abhidhamma; most Buddhists I have met are not aware of this concept. E.g. You'd probably heard a majority of Buddhists claim "I have no-self", but in fact, the Buddha rejected that idea for the idea that there is "neither self nor no-self" in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) among others.

 

[buddhist]

Except that I do not hold your "enlightened one" to be any kind of an authority on the matter.

this is just flat out wrong.
but since you are not interested in the truth of the matter, you win.
Fly on home claiming your "victory".

That's fine, the Buddha is an authority for me, and I am simply expressing my perspective without a desire to forcefully convince others otherwise. I'm not in it to "win" over others, but to find perspectives which might change mine.

 

[McBell]

It hinges on choice. Absence of choice is absence of attachment, both of which are said to result in the bliss of nibbana.

The choice to disbelieve is a active attachment towards disbelief (or in other words, an active rejection of belief). This exists in the realm of samsara, because a choice was made.

The third option is no choice, and thus no attachment nor rejection. I doubt most Buddhists have explored this intricacy of Abhidhamma; most Buddhists I have met are not aware of this concept. E.g. You'd probably heard a majority of Buddhists claim "I have no-self", but in fact, the Buddha rejected that idea for the idea that there is "neither self nor no-self" in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) among others.

It doe snot hinge on choice because choice is irrelevant.
You are either a theist or an atheist.
Does not matter why.
Does not matter your choice.
You are either one or the other.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, and we happen to define the sets differently.

You're arguing different apples about oranges.

 

[buddhist]

It doe snot hinge on choice because choice is irrelevant.
You are either a theist or an atheist.
Does not matter why.
Does not matter your choice.
You are either one or the other.

Choice is relevant in Buddhism.

 

[McBell]

Choice is relevant in Buddhism.

prove it

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Call it whatever you wish ... "hard atheist" vs "soft atheist", if you'd like, but they are two separate positions, in addition to "theist". Three positions.

Lol. No.

You must first be an atheist to take it that one step further. Your distinction is arbitrary, and extraneous.

I could just as easily make that same distinction for theists. Believers that claim to know there is a god and believers that make no such knowledge claim yet are still inclined to believe. Now we have 4 positions!

But wait, we could make more arbitrary distinctions until we have 8,16,32,infinite!

Yet, the original binary is no less existent.

 

[McBell]

prove it

For clarification....
I am not asking you to prove Buddhism true.
I am asking you prove your claim that Buddhism claims that Theist/Atheist is a false dichotomy.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Lol this whole debate is simply based upon a disagreement on terms like "atheist" and "default position".

Nah, it's also based on certain people's bizarre need for external labels to somehow validate their internal emotions. Infants cannot hold any beliefs, so labeling specific non-beliefs is meaningless. Any need to make it more complex than that reveals someone with strangely misplaced insecurities.

 

[buddhist]

prove it

I can only point to the position I hold - Kamma is the core Law in Buddhism, and Kamma is defined as "intentional action," aka "choice".

 

[buddhist]

For clarification....
I am not asking you to prove Buddhism true.
I am asking you prove your claim that Buddhism claims that Theist/Atheist is a false dichotomy.

In my interpretation of Buddhism, nobody can prove anything to anyone else. Everyone must obtain direct knowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Call it whatever you wish ... "hard atheist" vs "soft atheist", if you'd like, but they are two separate positions, in addition to "theist". Three positions.

There are as many positions as there are people. Any label is going to cover a vast range of worldviews regardless of whether you use the term "atheist" or subdivide atheism into different sub-groups.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In my interpretation of Buddhism, nobody can prove anything to anyone else. Everyone must obtain direct knowledge.

Yet here you are, trying to explain things to people.

 

[buddhist]

There are as many positions as there are people. Any label is going to cover a vast range of worldviews regardless of whether you use the term "atheist" or subdivide atheism into different sub-groups.

Yet here you are, trying to explain things to people.

Yes, I'm explaining my position, but I cannot prove it to anyone else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It hinges on choice. Absence of choice is absence of attachment, both of which are said to result in the bliss of nibbana.

The choice to disbelieve is a active attachment towards disbelief (or in other words, an active rejection of belief). This exists in the realm of samsara, because a choice was made.

The third option is no choice, and thus no attachment nor rejection. I doubt most Buddhists have explored this intricacy of Abhidhamma; most Buddhists I have met are not aware of this concept. E.g. You'd probably heard a majority of Buddhists claim "I have no-self", but in fact, the Buddha rejected that idea for the idea that there is "neither self nor no-self" in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) among others.

Both the person who "chooses" neither non-belief nor belief and the person who "chooses" non-belief have not chosen belief. That's all that's necessary to be an atheist.

... so after all that, it looks like the disagreement comes down to semantics.

 

[McBell]

In my interpretation of Buddhism, nobody can prove anything to anyone else. Everyone must obtain direct knowledge.

So it is in fact merely you pulling a humpty dumpty.
thank you for clarifying that.

 

[buddhist]

Both the person who "chooses" neither non-belief nor belief and the person who "chooses" non-belief have not chosen belief. That's all that's necessary to be an atheist.

... so after all that, it looks like the disagreement comes down to semantics.

Then I disagree with your definition of "atheism".

 

[buddhist]

So it is in fact merely you pulling a humpty dumpty.
thank you for clarifying that.

Likewise.

 

[McBell]

Likewise.

Except I am not changing the meaning of the word to fit my agenda.
You are.

At this point I have no idea if you are simply ignorant of the concept or are just being dishonest.
But since you have shown you have to have the last word, by all means, take it.
Just try not to waste it.

 

[buddhist]

Except I am not changing the meaning of the word to fit my agenda.
You are.

At this point I have no idea if you are simply ignorant of the concept or are just being dishonest.
But since you have shown you have to have the last word, by all means, take it.
Just try not to waste it.

I disagree. I am consistent with this definition of the word "atheism": a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism)

"disbelief" means the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue (source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief)

Expanded, "atheism" therefore means "an action of mental rejection in the existence of deity". Whereas my third position involves no action nor mental rejection.