Why reject atheism?

[Buddha Dharma]

But I would like very much if you could pass some other quotes from Buddha and Zoroaster to me and their sources as they would be valuable to me. I accept both Buddha and Zoroaster so I want to know where they said this. Thank you.

Alright I shall have to look at the Avesta again. That may take a few days. I am sure I will find it, and I will respond again in this thread when I do.

As for Buddhism's forbidding slavery- it is a given in how the Buddha taught people to treat one another. Per the Vinaya (monastic code) he didn't even allow dumping out water with living organisms such as larvae, he was so opposed to needless destruction and violence.

How much more so would he care about human suffering, when Buddhists see humanity as the ideal for enlightenment? In Buddhism, human life holds an especially sacred dimension because of our nature furnishing both the necessity and potential for enlightenment.

Buddhism forbids anything that obstructs an individual from seeking spirituality and liberation from Samsara. Slavery and forms of coercion are among these. Of course, the Buddha could not control how world leaders would apply or ignore his teachings.

This is one Zoroastrian source, claiming that the religion forbids slavery, but I'll keep looking for you: Volume 2

Update: Cyrus the Great is commonly acknowledged as having forbade slavery on the grounds of Zoroastrian morality. This is evidenced by the Cyrus Cylinder, the Hebrew Bible, and the designation of all Persian subjects as slaves to the ruler- making no man above another.

Also found this post in a forum by a Zoroastrian, who cites references in response to a question asking when in human history slavery was first forbidden:

This would be probably Cyrus, King of Persia and founder of the Achaemenid Empire - Wikipedia, who freed the Jews from captivity and rebuilt their temple in Jerusalem. There was no slavery in the Persian empire, the great capital of Parsa (Persepolis) was built on paid labour. See Cyrus the Great - Wikipedia

Another great example is Emperor Ashoka of India. Emperor Ashoka: The Buddhist Ruler Who Banned Slavery and Animal Cruelty, and Implemented Gender Equality

@loverofhumanity see also: The story behind the Cyrus Cylinder

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not replying to anyone in particular but I thought I might waffle on a bit about the analogy between not collecting stamps and atheism. I fully understand that not collecting stamps is not a hobby but I have, in fact, spent almost all of my more than 50 years of life not collecting stamps and I have to say I have found it incredibly liberating. I've had time to do all kinds of other things - watching tv, playing soccer (a long time ago), a bit of (rather amateur it has to be said) carpentry and gardening and so on. On the negative side, I have absolutely no idea how much a penny black is worth or which brand of stamp hinges are currently thought to be the long-term stickiest. But on the whole I think I'm reasonably happy to forego these elements of human wisdom in favour of the great vistas that not collecting stamps has given me the freedom to explore. Does that make "not collecting stamps" a "thing"? Or not? Conversely, if I reject "not collecting stamps" as an irrelevance, a "non-thing" - does that mean I am automatically a stamp collector? I think not. You? (Anybody?)

2 thoughts.
1) that made a fair bit of sense for self-described 'waffle'
2) what the heck are stamp hinges, and how do you know of them? You sound like a closet stamp-licker.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Alright I shall have to look at the Avesta again. That may take a few days. I am sure I will find it, and I will respond again in this thread when I do.

As for Buddhism's forbidding slavery- it is a given in how the Buddha taught people to treat one another. Per the Vinaya (monastic code) he didn't even allow dumping out water with living organisms such as larvae, he was so opposed to needless destruction and violence.

How much more so would he care about human suffering, when Buddhists see humanity as the ideal for enlightenment? In Buddhism, human life holds an especially sacred dimension because of our nature furnishing both the necessity and potential for enlightenment.

Buddhism forbids anything that obstructs an individual from seeking spirituality and liberation from Samsara. Slavery and forms of coercion are among these. Of course, the Buddha could not control how world leaders would apply or ignore his teachings.

This is one Zoroastrian source, claiming that the religion forbids slavery, but I'll keep looking for you: Volume 2

Update: Cyrus the Great is commonly acknowledged as having forbade slavery on the grounds of Zoroastrian morality. This is evidenced by the Cyrus Cylinder, the Hebrew Bible, and the designation of all Persian subjects as slaves to the ruler- making no man above another.

Also found this post in a forum by a Zoroastrian, who cites references in response to a question asking when in human history slavery was first forbidden:

This would be probably Cyrus, King of Persia and founder of the Achaemenid Empire - Wikipedia, who freed the Jews from captivity and rebuilt their temple in Jerusalem. There was no slavery in the Persian empire, the great capital of Parsa (Persepolis) was built on paid labour. See Cyrus the Great - Wikipedia

Another great example is Emperor Ashoka of India. Emperor Ashoka: The Buddhist Ruler Who Banned Slavery and Animal Cruelty, and Implemented Gender Equality

@loverofhumanity see also: The story behind the Cyrus Cylinder

This is an excellent post. It’s interesting that Iran is among the worst abusers of human rights yet they know better than anyone.

I have the highest respect for the Buddhist King Ashoka and it’s a wonderful tribute to Buddha and Buddhism how he was transformed by Buddha’s Teachings into to a non violent and peace loving King.

I’ve been reading some of Zoroaster’s teachings the other day and I really like the Good thoughts, good words and good deeds principle. Could be part of a global ethic.

There are so many beautiful truths in all the religions that to not behold them is to deprive oneself. The Dhammapadda is another of the great wisdom of Buddha which is timeless and 2,500 years later is very much a light for this age.

We have so much spiritual truth available to us yet very few people receive a proper spiritual education.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Oh Lord! LOH - have you never heard of James Oglethorpe, William Wilberforce, the Quakers, the Clapham Saints, Abraham Lincoln...all of these objected to slavery on religious and moral grounds. It was outlawed in France in the 14th century, England in 1833 and the US in 1865 - all before Baha'u'llah caught on in the book you quoted from which he wrote in 1873. He doesn't credit for being the first to oppose slavery on religious or any other grounds.

I think my post was misunderstood?

I meant to say that Baha’u’llah is the first Prophet to abolish slavery as part of an official religious code in a Holy Book in His own handwriting. No other Prophet to my knowledge has done this.

The significance is it becomes official law not just an ethical teaching or objection to slavery.

The Bible does not abolish slavery, neither does the Quran. The Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend Avesta, Buddhist Scriptures don’t either to my knowledge. They may object to it but I am speaking about actual religious law here not just ethics.

Up until the Most Holy Book I know no other Holy Book which abolishes slavery as part of its laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

9-10ths, your definitions of both theism and atheism seem to be incorrect. Atheism (as you have already agreed) is athe-ism (literally 'without-god(s)-ism' - or 'without belief in any god(s)')...it is not a-theism (literally 'without-theism') - this is where you are going wrong. Theism does not - in modern usage or in etymological origin - mean belief in any god(s) - it means the more specific belief in a personal creator kind of god with whom it is possible for humans to have some kind of personal relationship. Deism - which is belief in an impersonal creator who doesn't directly interact with humans is definitely not theism - indeed the English word 'theist' was coined specifically to distinguish those with more traditional theistic beliefs from the deists who held God to be an impersonal and disinterested creator who had no direct relationship (through revelation or miraculous intervention) with his creation. Deists were often labelled 'atheists' by their 'theist' opponents as were 'pantheists' (such as John Toland who coined the word 'pantheist' in 1705). If you are opposing 'atheism' to 'theism' then deists, pantheists, polytheists and agnostics are all atheists. But atheism is actually (etymologically) opposed not only to theism, but also to deism, pantheism, polytheism...etc. so if I reject atheism, I could be any of those and still not be a theist. You could quite legitimately be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, an agnostic deist, an agnostic pantheist...etc. I suppose - but still, rejecting atheism is not the same as accepting theism. Never in a month of Sundays.

So you've changed your mind? You just said that this is how you define atheism:

But if you need a definition then an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in deity (any deity, any kind of deity). Right?

I responded on that basis. If you actually agree with this, I don't understand pretty much any of your arguments. All of them seem to be incompatible with what you've told me you consider atheism to be.

At this point, I have no idea what your position actually is.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why can't you understand it? You do it yourself for every god besides the one you believe in.

For 99.999...% of gods, your assertion if their non-existence is much more extreme than the position of a typical atheist (i.e. something like "belief in gods isn't justified").


Epistemologically, demonstrating the non-existence of a pink unicorn is basically equivalent to demonstrating the non-existence of a god, provided that the person asserting the god is clear enough about what they mean.

... though there is a difference because of how god-concepts are used by theists: a pink unicorn that exists out there somewhere beyond the knowledge of any person would mean that the claim "pink unicorns exist" is true. However, a god that exists out beyond the knowledge of any him isn't the god that any real-world theist actually believes in.

I mean, take the Christian position: any god thay didn't create the Earth and people, do miracles in front of Pharoah, carve the Ten Commandments for Moses, have a son who came to Earth in human form (who either was or wasn't God himself, depending on the flavour of Christianity), etc., etc. isn't the god that they're talking about.

With most gods, it's a given that the god is known to humanity. This means that a lot of the stuff about how "you can't prove a negative" doesn't apply: all that is based on the idea that we can't know what we don't know... but gods generally can't be in the "what we don't know" category, because any "god" that's completely unknown to humanity is a "god" that no human being has ever worshipped and is not the focus of any human religion ever.

Great! Now, address what I said. What is the difference between having billions of theists today, in modern, educated times, and having not one sane person on the planet who believes in pink unicorns?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Great! Now, address what I said.

I did. Read more carefully.

What is the difference between having billions of theists today, in modern, educated times, and having not one sane person on the planet who believes in pink unicorns?

In terms of rational support for their positions? Virtually none, IMO.

The differences between the two positions that I see:

- there are social pressures to believe in gods that we don't have for pink unicorns.

- our neurology and our thought processes lend themselves more to mistakenly inferring gods than mistakenly inferring pink unicorns.

That's it, really.

 

[Dan020350]

Why reject Atheism?
-.- First one must understand thw word Atheism, that is one must reject knowledge of the supernatural and accept what can be put into an intelligent body of empirical knowledge.

Therefore if one does not know or understand a certain circumstance or event, one must inquire. Meaning one does not reject Atheism he is just going deeper and making things more clearer. Of course there will be pain and hardship for the inquiry and he may never find out completely.
So, he rejects Atheism at the same time accepts Atheism, because he is inquiring what is the unknown, supernatural, and mystery. Otherwise , you can never find out deeper things but the surface.

Your poet
Dan020350

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

which is exactly my point, atheism explicitly refuses to acknowledge itself as a belief- it's right there in the name

I can do exactly the same thing still, as an a-naturalist- I make no positive assertions that need backed up by tricky things like evidence- I simply refuse to believe in naturalism until proven otherwise (*and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative). I have no need to do this now though, I am willing and able to defend my beliefs on their own merits



^ as above, why be wary of the heinous fellow that has no interest in formulating naturalistic explanations for the universe?

I guess it's important to you to force others into some form of "religious belief" system, whether they hold one or not.

According to American Atheists: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system."

I have said it before, I have many beliefs which I cannot prove, but believe strongly (sometimes completely) anyway. But if you contend that atheism is a belief then I will contend that the woman who rejects your sexual advances is engaging in some form of sexual activity -- and I would find that a ludicrous suggestion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I guess it's important to you to force others into some form of "religious belief" system, whether they hold one or not.

'defend' not enforce!- I acknowledge my personal faith as such, do you?

remember that where atheism has dominated, USSR, North Korea, Communist China, it is only through massive brute force. And where that oppression recedes, faith naturally returns with freedom

According to American Atheists: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system."

Of course, we agree entirely on how atheists frame their own belief, as a disbelief - I used to be one and did the exact same thing for decades

I have said it before, I have many beliefs which I cannot prove, but believe strongly (sometimes completely) anyway. But if you contend that atheism is a belief then I will contend that the woman who rejects your sexual advances is engaging in some form of sexual activity -- and I would find that a ludicrous suggestion.

So as an a-naturalist, I merely disbelieve any naturalistic explanations for life and the universe, and it would be ludicrous for you to suggest that by extension, I hold any other belief on the subject- right?



Here's a dead giveaway - " American Atheists" providing a statement

Is there a club for people who simply have no interest whatsoever in stamp collecting, who go to great lengths to make noise about this 'lack of interest'?

 

[siti]

I don't understand pretty much any of your arguments.

Clearly! OK - I'll have one more stab...atheism IS the lack of belief in any god(s)...theism is NOT the belief in any god, it is the belief in a specific kind of god - a personal creator who interacts with his creation...atheism rejects this idea along with deism, pantheism...etc...etc... therefore rejecting atheism does not make someone a theist because they might be a deist, a pantheist etc...etc... and therefore neither an atheist nor a theist. If one did not understand the distinctions between theism, deism, pantheism etc... then I'm not sure why one would self-identify as an atheist because one would not be aware of what it was one did not believe in - but one could still lack belief I suppose in the same way that one could not be a stamp collector or not be a golfer - but such a self-identification seems to me to be completely irrelevant - and frankly, intellectually lazy. To self-identify as an atheist seems to me to imply rejection of a belief in god(s) not just a lack of belief. But to reject belief one surely would have to have at least some idea of what is being rejected? Refusal to self-identify as an atheist (i.e. to 'reject' atheism) is not, never has been and never will be tantamount to accepting theism.

 

[siti]

I think my post was misunderstood?

I meant to say that Baha’u’llah is the first Prophet to abolish slavery as part of an official religious code in a Holy Book in His own handwriting. No other Prophet to my knowledge has done this.

The significance is it becomes official law not just an ethical teaching or objection to slavery.

The Bible does not abolish slavery, neither does the Quran. The Bhagavad-Gita, the Zend Avesta, Buddhist Scriptures don’t either to my knowledge. They may object to it but I am speaking about actual religious law here not just ethics.

Up until the Most Holy Book I know no other Holy Book which abolishes slavery as part of its laws.

Yes but your prophet was at least decades behind secular authorities in formulating such a law...that shows that theocracy had already been left behind and was no longer up to the task of prescribing the morality of human societies...it certainly doesn't show that we need more of it. Baha'u'llah was not ahead of his time, he was an anachronistic throwback who latched on to some fairly modern enlightenment ideas during his discourses with foreign government officials and mixed them up with fragments of Abrahamic religious tradition - especially Shi'a Islam and the Sufi mysticism that he was exposed to in Kurdistan.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

'defend' not enforce!- I acknowledge my personal faith as such, do you?

I did. Did you not see, in the very post you are quoting, that I said "I have many beliefs which I cannot prove, but believe strongly?"

remember that where atheism has dominated, USSR, North Korea, Communist China, it is only through massive brute force. And where that oppression recedes, faith naturally returns with freedom

Then how do you explain the atheists, like myself (and yourself once, so you say) who have been perfectly free to believe what they will, and did not "naturally" return to faith?

Of course, we agree entirely on how atheists frame their own belief, as a disbelief - I used to be one and did the exact same thing for decades

So as an a-naturalist, I merely disbelieve any naturalistic explanations for life and the universe, and it would be ludicrous for you to suggest that by extension, I hold any other belief on the subject- right?

If you were to claim to me that you are an "a-naturalist" disbelieving "any naturalistic explanations for the life and the universe," but said nothing else on the subject, then I would be forced to conclude one of the following:

• you don't believe in life and the universe, and therefore they need no cause, naturalistic or otherwise
• you do believe in them, but that they have no natural cause, and therefore must have an unnatural one.

In the latter case, since you don't say, I would have no idea what that might possibly be. And thus, I would not be very much enlightened about your belief system at all.

Here's a dead giveaway - " American Atheists" providing a statement

Is there a club for people who simply have no interest whatsoever in stamp collecting, who go to great lengths to make noise about this 'lack of interest'?

You may be aware, or you may not, but one of the most "hated" groups in the US (and in many other religious nations) are atheists. When you are hated, just as in the gay revolution I've lived, or the feminist revolution, or the striving for "truth and reconciliation" in Canada's much-abused aboriginal cultures, you tend to get interested. Atheists aren't interested in God. They're interested in not being hated because they can't see this figment of other people's imaginations.

 

[Zosimus]

I guess it's important to you to force others into some form of "religious belief" system, whether they hold one or not.

According to American Atheists: "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system."

I have said it before, I have many beliefs which I cannot prove, but believe strongly (sometimes completely) anyway. But if you contend that atheism is a belief then I will contend that the woman who rejects your sexual advances is engaging in some form of sexual activity -- and I would find that a ludicrous suggestion.

This is, of course, pure nonsense. We need look no further than this post to see what atheism is. It's the assertion that there is nothing there.

Theism is the assertion that there is something there.

Agnosticism is just honestly admitting that one does not know and, indeed, that one cannot know. It's the admission that one can take no action to force an unwilling god to reveal itself.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did. Read more carefully.


In terms of rational support for their positions? Virtually none, IMO.

The differences between the two positions that I see:

- there are social pressures to believe in gods that we don't have for pink unicorns.

- our neurology and our thought processes lend themselves more to mistakenly inferring gods than mistakenly inferring pink unicorns.

That's it, really.

The second part of what you wrote is telling. You are actually saying there is a natural tendency to lean toward belief in God (neurology and thought).

Thanks for self-checkmating.

 

[area28]

Why reject atheism ?
I personally am acquainted with 2 atheist
at my work place ... they just seem so angry
..and to boot they love to mess with the Christians

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The second part of what you wrote is telling. You are actually saying there is a natural tendency to lean toward belief in God (neurology and thought).

Thanks for self-checkmating.

I'm telling you that the main reasons for theism have nothing to do with any gods actually existing. Why would you consider that a "checkmate?"

 

[wandering peacefully]

Inspired by another thread:

Why would anyone reject atheism? If someone does reject atheism, what do they see as being wrong with atheism that they should reject it? How can someone reject the failure to believe in a or any proposed deity?

Please discuss! And remember, this is NOT a venue for debate! Discussion ONLY!

We are all born atheist. We have no knowledge of any gods or religions until the idea and thoughts of God, gods are placed in our heads.

If the ideas of gods had never been created by men and spread to others, we would still all be atheists. There are millions of these different created ideas invented and spread throughout the world.

One can only become a theist after being exposed to one or several of these millions depending on culture and location (usually) and be indoctrinated or choose to become a theist.


Why would anyone want to deny their natural born state?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This is, of course, pure nonsense. We need look no further than this post to see what atheism is. It's the assertion that there is nothing there.

Theism is the assertion that there is something there.

Agnosticism is just honestly admitting that one does not know and, indeed, that one cannot know. It's the admission that one can take no action to force an unwilling god to reveal itself.

No, I reject this notion. As in Bertrand Russell's example of a Ming teapot orbiting in the rings of Saturn -- the only honest approach, according to your logic, would be to claim agnostic. You cannot possibly make an assertion either way, especially now that some craft originating on this planet have been there!

And yet, I feel very, very comfortable in saying it's not there: I can only be 99.99% sure, so technically that would still make me agnostic, but I would be really dishonest with myself and others to declare myself agnostic on the subject, would I not? And given what I am supposed to know about what Theism asserts (not deism, by the way, I'm an atheist), I feel very much the same way. All of the evidence and logic I have available to me points me in the direction of no such God. Not 100% sure, but close enough not to try to hide behind tiny loopholes.

 

[siti]

We are all born atheist. We have no knowledge of any gods or religions until the idea and thoughts of God, gods are placed in our heads...
Why would anyone want to deny their natural born state?

We are not born atheist, we are born ignorant - which is what lack of knowledge implies - if you are self-identifying as an atheist simply because you lack knowledge of any god(s) then I think (as I may have suggested once or twice already) that makes atheism an irrelevance. And if you are so keen to affirm your "natural born state" may we assume that you still crap in your pants and snuggle up to your mother's breast when you're hungry? Of course we (at least most of us) don't want to remain in infantile ignorance - the sad part is that so many of us, having barely escaped abject ignorance by the time we die, spend a significant proportion of our lives proclaiming that we actually know something about it...but all that "ignorantist" talk aside, atheism is not ignorance.