My evolving view on “is atheism a religion?”

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Bringing up conspiracies to deflect, distract and paint a "conspiracy nut"-label on the one presenting some facts and evidence to consider in response to the smug dogmatic assertion "there is no evidence for God", isn't going to change what the evidence is pointing towards in the scientific fields you mentioned and I already addressed (genetics and mutations being the main topic of the videos I linked, 4th video after the one entitled "Ticker Tape Machine & Information Processing in Living Cells (short version)" discusses some of the evidence in the preceding 3).
This is a conspiracy nut:

Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning​—pointing to an intelligent Planner. Many scholars have come to such a conclusion.
...
A Spotty Fossil Record

A third mystery that has puzzled some scientists is related to the fossil record. If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin’s time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that​—missing!

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin’s Enigma: “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”

On the other hand, the fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Facing the Evidence

The foregoing represents just the tip of an iceberg of unanswered questions that puzzle those who dismiss the evidence of a Creator. Some scientists realize that the rejection of God is a path paved, not by hard evidence and careful logic, but by hopeful assumptions and conjectures.

Thus, after a lifetime of fruitful scientific research and work, astronomer Allan Sandage said: “It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It is only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence.”
...[next page]
DO YOU ever feel a bit put off by the debate that rages on the subject of evolution versus creation? If so, you are not alone.

After all, on one side of the issue are some learned scientists and academics, often using very technical language, who insist that if you are educated and intelligent, you must accept the theory of evolution as fact. On the other side are some equally overbearing religionists who use emotionally charged rhetoric to say that if you have genuine faith, you must agree with their brand of creationism.

Such extremist viewpoints alienate many reasonable people. The question of God’s existence deserves better than smug, dogmatic assertions. Remember, this question is more than a subject for debate, more than a mere intellectual exercise. The issues involved can affect your life and your future.

A Common Problem With Scientists

As we have seen, there are more than a few reputable, educated scientists who say that the evidence points to the existence of a Designer or Creator. A few go still further. They question the scientific integrity of their colleagues who dogmatically dismiss the existence of God.

For example, geophysicist John R. Baumgardner notes: “In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist with any sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, in my opinion represents a serious breach of scientific integrity.”

...What, though, about religious leaders who advocate creationism?

A Common Problem With Religionists

Modesty and integrity are also in short supply on the part of religious leaders. After all, where is the integrity in asserting that the Bible teaches what it does not teach? Where is the modesty in putting personal views and favorite traditions above the Bible? This is precisely what many creationists have done.

For instance, creationists often say that the entire universe was created in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago. With teachings like this, they misrepresent the Bible, which says that God created the heavens and the earth “in the beginning”​—at some unstated point before the more specific creative “days” began. (Genesis 1:1) Significantly, the Genesis account shows that the expression “day” is used in a flexible sense. At Genesis 2:4, the entire period of six days described in the preceding chapter is spoken of as only one day. Logically, these were, not literal days of 24 hours, but long periods of time. Each of these epochs evidently lasted thousands of years.

All too often, religious teachers are equally off base when they talk about faith. Some seem to suggest that faith involves believing passionately in something for which there is no solid evidence. To many reasoning people, that sounds more like gullibility. The Bible defines faith quite differently: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) So genuine faith is not mere gullibility. It is based on solid evidence, on reasonable assurance.

On what evidence, then, is faith in God based? There are two bodies of evidence, both of them compelling.

Weighing the Evidence

The apostle Paul was moved to write that God’s “invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Romans 1:20) For thousands of years, wise men and women have perceived evidence of God’s existence in the natural world.

As we have seen, science can be a useful tool in this regard. The more we learn about the complexity and order of the universe, the more reason we have to be in awe of the One who designed it all. Some scientists are open to such evidence and find it convincing. No doubt they would say that science has helped them to find God. Other scientists, it seems, will not be convinced by any amount of evidence. What about you?

Source: Why Some Scientists Believe in God: Awake!—2004

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The makeup of the rings of Saturn are knowable by today’s technology.



A fair analogy would if you asked that about a planet not close enough to check..

In which case then no good scientists would be willing to guarantee anything 100%.

They are really TINY unicorns, that our sophisticated technology has not yet detected. But, they're there!

You are using absurdity in your favor here. I am with you in holding a skeptical position when lack of sufficient evidence is present. HOWEVER....I also hedge my skeptical certainty with the possibility that lack of evidence isn't proof of the contrary.

If we were to go back far enough in time and propose the idea of subatomic particles, their nature, makeup, functioning etc...it would likely sound A LOT like really TINY unicorns riding around in the rings of slightly larger invisible unicorns....(essentially pretty absurd)...

The absurdity of the proposal DOES NOT prove that those ideas however are false...just that they are incapable of being properly demonstrated, measured at that point in time.

Science and knowledge aren't ever really in a state of completion....in the light of their incomplete state, suspended certainty is reasonable.

a reply to: Sly1one


My point is that "evidence" is always apparent for the believer but rejected by the non-believer. Atheism is a rejection of a claim of god, as in "I reject the concept of the biblical god(s)". An atheist can only reject concepts that are presented for their consideration.

a reply to: EasternShadow

Brahmā is a leading god (deva) and heavenly king in Buddhism.[1][2] He was adopted from other Indian religions such as Hinduism...Brahma is a part of the Buddhist cosmology,[2] and lords over the heavenly realm of rebirth called the Brahmaloka[6] – the most sought after realm for afterlife and reincarnation in Buddhist traditions.

Source: Brahmā (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

Sounds like a pretty "great" "god" as described there. Either way, he's still described as "a god". A personal god at that. You might even argue for "very great" being the way it's described there.

Buddhism is not "godless/without a god or gods". Just like Buddhist texts.

edit from before (edits are in italics):

and if the Brahmin that penned down the texts that inspired those who penned down the Buddhist texts which mentioned, described and claimed the existence of various gods/deities thought these weren't all that great, why the need to mention and describe them at all? Or those Buddhists that felt the need to describe the same gods in the same or in their own way with only 'minor' modifications?

I guess "minor" is in the eye of the beholder. I just realized the way I put that before it appeared that I was getting my Hinduism and Buddhism confused, perhaps I was. But the way it's phrased above now more accurately presents what I was thinking about when I was referring to the Hindu Brahmin all of a sudden in a discussion about Buddhism.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Sounds like a pretty "great" "god" as described there. Either way, he's still described as "a god". A personal god at that. You might even argue for "very great" being the way it's described there.

Brahma in HINDUISM was equal to YHWH the most High El, in JUDAISM. He was to Buddhism, before Buddha took over and relegate Brahma's godhood in favor of Buddha's humanity.

Buddhism used the term Brahma to deny a creator as well as to delegate him (and other deities such as Indra) as less important than the Buddha.[14][15][16]

The Buddhists attacked the concept of Brahma, states Gananath Obeyesekere, and thereby polemically attacked the Vedic and Upanishadic concept of gender neutral, abstract metaphysical Brahman.[21] This critique of Brahma in early Buddhist texts aim at ridiculing the Vedas, but the same texts simultaneously call metta (loving-kindness, compassion) as the state of union with Brahma. The early Buddhist approach to Brahma was to reject any creator aspect, while retaining the Brahmavihara aspects of Brahma, in the Buddhist value system.[21] Deity Brahma is also found in the samsara doctrine and cosmology of early Buddhism.[22][23]

Excerpts from the same link you provided.
en.m.wikipedia.org...(Buddhism)

originally posted by: whereislogic
Buddhism is not "godless/without a god or gods". Just like Buddhist texts.

Whoever their HINDU's god was, that HINDU's god ( Brahma ) is no longer exist as a god. Gautama Buddha did not teach relationship with god by abiding god's laws for salvation. He taught Humanity's Karma to attain Nirvana, the perfect state of being. By karma, human are judged and reincarnated until they reached Nirvana.

According to KN Jayatilleke, the Rigveda expresses skepticism about major deities such as Indra whether he even exists,[10] as well as whether the universe has any creator and can this ever be known, as evidenced in its eighth and tenth book, particularly in its Nasadiya Sukta.[11][12]

en.m.wikipedia.org...(Buddhism)
Sound like an agnostic/atheist skepticism.

originally posted by: whereislogic
edit from before (edits are in italics):
the texts that inspired those who penned down the Buddhist texts which mentioned, described and claimed the existence of various gods/deities thought these weren't all that great, why the need to mention and describe them at all? Or those Buddhists that felt the need to describe the same gods in the same or in their own way with only 'minor' modifications?

It was described because they were the source of HINDU's Vedas, which is the origin of Buddhism until Buddha introduce the 8 wheel of life principles. As you can see from your own link, Buddhist text attack and ridicule Hindu's Vedas later.

originally posted by: whereislogic
I guess "minor" is in the eye of the beholder. I just realized the way I put that before it appeared that I was getting my Hinduism and Buddhism confused, perhaps I was. But the way it's phrased above now more accurately presents what I was thinking about when I was referring to the Hindu Brahmin all of a sudden in a discussion about Buddhism.

Excerpts from your link doesn't appear to be "minor" especially considering, one attempts to strip a god from his godhood.

Buddhism denies both Brahman and Atman concepts in ancient Hindu literature,[43] and posits Śūnyatā (emptiness, voidness) and Anatta (non-Self, no soul) concept instead.[44][45][46]

In the earliest Upanishad, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Absolute, which came to be referred to as Brahman, is referred to as "the imperishable".[50] The Pāli scriptures present a "pernicious view" that is set up as an absolute principle corresponding to Brahman: "O Bhikkhus! At that time Baka, the Brahmā, produced the following pernicious view: 'It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existent. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it is not bor gfn, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere." The principle expounded here corresponds to the concept of Brahman laid out in the Upanishads.
According to this text the Buddha criticized this notion: "Truly the Baka Brahmā is covered with unwisdom."[51]

On surface, Buddhist appear to acknowledge god, but it was due to their inheritance from Hindu's Vedas. But as Buddha and his followers had been gradually trying to make sense of Hindu's gods, they deprived gods such Shiva, Khrisna and others from their divinity and power, turning a deva into completely a worthless stone statue.

In short, Buddhist do not accept the practise of worshipping deity/deities and/or reject the concept of god the creator/ the supreme being as oppose to other religions. And because of that, they are literally in the anti-god camp, the Atheist. However, because of their own practise and traditions, Buddhism is considered more than a philosophy but a religion as well.

a reply to: EasternShadow
That different Buddhists teach contradicting stuff isn't surprising. "Brahmā is [still] a leading god (deva) and heavenly king in Buddhism." exactly as wikipedia states no matter what other teachings are taught by Buddhists as well (cause they also can't keep their story straight). Whether they deny a creator or worship these gods like Brahma is completely irrelevant. Whether some guy states that "The Buddhists attacked the concept of Brahma" or that "The early Buddhist approach to Brahma was to reject any creator aspect, while retaining the Brahmavihara aspects of Brahma, in the Buddhist value system." is completely irrelevant to your comment that said (and I was responding to):

Buddhism reject deity/ies.

Which your own chosen quotation refutes there at the end:

Deity Brahma is also found in the samsara doctrine and cosmology of early Buddhism.

I'm sorry, but that's not rejecting deities (or "rejecting the gods" to take one definition for "atheism" or "atheist", the latter being a person that is "rejecting the gods", any type), that is claiming the existence of the "deity Brahma", "a leading god...in Buddhism". If you call something a "god/deity" you're not "rejecting the gods/deities" no matter how you redefine or 'downsize' "god/deity" thereafter and regardless if one worships them or not or whether or not one thinks this god is a creator. Those are all red herrings I think (that's the description I'm going with, with all due respect).

And whether there are some Buddhists (or perhaps even the majority) who are no longer calling them "gods" or calling Brahma "a god" or arguing and teaching that these are not gods or that Brahma is not "a god" is also irrelevant as long as there are at least some Buddhists left that are still referring to Brahma as "a god" then it's still part of modern day Buddhism, no matter if there are variants in modern day Buddhism. And if you just say "Buddhism" like in your claim, you can't just ignore what the Buddhist texts used to and still teach, that's also "Buddhism" (such as in the phrase "early Buddhism"). If anywhere in Buddhism, past or present, you find mention of gods as if these actually exist, then Buddhism does not reject the existence of gods/deities, however they define them or view their importance (now or in the past). Anyway, from what I just read it still seems very common in the modern-day teachings, even worship of these deities/gods (between brackets is my synonym as a reminder regarding your claim):

Gods and Goddesses

Although some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism, both the earliest ancient texts and contemporary Buddhist societies feature deities and ‘supernatural’ beings galore. The deities that we associate with ‘Hinduism’ and other deities from countries to which Buddhism spread are not denied[/not rejected] but seen as other inhabitants of the complex and multi-dimensional universe or universes in which we dwell. However, they are best understood as another life-form, superior in powers to humans, but nevertheless not immortal nor ultimate. One can be reborn as a god or goddess, as well as in human, animal, ghost, or demon form or in a (temporary) hell world. They can however help within their sphere of influence, so Buddhism in practice includes worship of a variety of such beings. This may be dismissed by some as ‘folk religion’, but they do seem to appear at the highest levels of text and practice. Indeed, a traditional story of the Buddha’s enlightenment says that the god Brahma was the one who persuaded the newly enlightened Buddha that it would be worth teaching others. Indian deities such as Ganesha and Vishnu can be seen in Sri Lankan temples, and even as far away from India as Japan, Benzaiten, a version of the goddess Saraswati, remains a popular deity.

Source: THINK PIECE Ultimate reality, God and gods in Buddhism – Denise Cush | RE:ONLINE

Because I got confused as to how "contemporary" was meant there until I read the end of the paragraph, I had to look that up in the dictionary to see which definition was used there, it seems to be this one:

2. belonging to or occurring in the present.

I'm more used to definition 1 so that's why I got confused, but the context clears that up. The website also mentions what I already mentioned:

There are however many different forms of Buddhism...

With all that being said, I'd like to mention that it really isn't harmful to acknowledge that you were wrong when you said:

Buddhism reject deity/ies.

It's actually very healthful to your mind to be able to do so, it helps with swallowing something that is actually quite harmful to your mind and prevents rational discourse or reasonable thinking. I hope you take this the right way as it is intended, don't know how more salty I can make it. Col. 4:6:

Let your words always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should answer each person.

a reply to: whereislogic
With all that being said, I'd like to mention that it really isn't harmful to acknowledge that you were wrong when you said:

Do you mean you wiki link is wrong or, perhaps you choose to ignore the part that I have already highlight as:

Buddhism used the term Brahma to deny a creator as well as to delegate him (and other deities such as Indra) as less important than the Buddha.[14][15][16]

And your other links also point out the same thing which you conveniently left out such as this:

No God
It is clear that there is no personal monotheistic God in Buddhism, transcendent and separate from the material world, which is his creation. There is no need for a creator, either because there was never a beginning (Theravada) or because in ultimate reality, no things actually ‘exist’ (some forms of Mahayana thought).
www.reonline.org.uk...

I have more sources than your wiki and reonline links, if you wish.

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected,
Source: www.accesstoinsight.org...


The Buddha who had mastered all the religious traditions of the time not only rejected the prevalent views on salvation, but presented a novel philosophy of emancipation. He discarded such views as divine creation,
The Buddha's attitude towards this long-cherished concept of Brahmais two-fold.
- Complete rejection of the Brahma concept.
www.budsas.org...


"We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods."
-- Nagarjuna
Source: www.buddhanet.net...

Stephen Batchelor: "There are some passages, and I cite them in the book, where the Buddha does address the question of Theism and Atheism. And he takes a stance of what I call an "ironic Atheist."
Source: www.youtube.com...

If atheism is the absence of belief in a God or gods, then many Buddhists are, indeed, atheists.
www.thoughtco.com...

There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being.
www.religionfacts.com...

Only in one sense can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal omnipotent God or God-head who is the creator and ordainer of the world.
www.budsas.org...
#atheism #buddhism #religion

Buddhism is an atheist religion because in the creation narrative of Buddhism, the samsaric cycle that is responsible for the cosmos was not created by god(s), nor is it ran by gods. Everything is subservient to this without-gods (a-theos - atheist) system. Nearly all classical Buddhist scholars assert that Buddhism is atheistic.
www.vexen.co.uk...

There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism as well, and indeed some of the early Indian Mahayana philosophers have denounced god-worship in terms which are even stronger than those expressed in the Theravada literature.

Just as Buddhism rejects the notion of a Supreme God it also rejects the notion of an abstract God-principle operating in the universe.

The Buddha dismisses all these claims of Mahâ Brahmâ as being due to his own delusions brought about by ignorance. He argues that Mahâ-Brahmâ is simply another deva,

The Buddha's refutation of the God-concept was formulated some 2500 years ago, perhaps at the very time that the idea of a single supreme God was mooted in India and in the Middle East.
www.budsas.org...

In Buddhism there is not a self known as "Creator God" nor "The Creator of the World"; the universe with all of its content is governed by the universal law (Niyama Dhamma) prevailing in all realms of life, all the contents of the Earth, all the star systems, and all the galaxies in the universe.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: whereislogic

However, they are best understood as another life-form, superior in powers to humans, but nevertheless not immortal nor ultimate. One can be reborn as a god or goddess, as well as in human, animal, ghost, or demon form or in a (temporary) hell world. They can however help within their sphere of influence, so Buddhism in practice includes worship of a variety of such beings. This may be dismissed by some as ‘folk religion’, but they do seem to appear at the highest levels of text and practice. Indeed, a traditional story of the Buddha’s enlightenment says that the god Brahma was the one who persuaded the newly enlightened Buddha that it would be worth teaching others. Indian deities such as Ganesha and Vishnu can be seen in Sri Lankan temples, and even as far away from India as Japan, Benzaiten, a version of the goddess Saraswati, remains a popular deity.

Source: THINK PIECE Ultimate reality, God and gods in Buddhism – Denise Cush | RE:ONLINE

And that is precisely why I said, Buddhist do not understand what we commonly know as god. To Buddhist god is like angels and demons, radiant or shining beings who live on other realm and are subjected to mortality and karma.

Here's more explanation from your reonline link.

Buddhas and bodhisattvas[1] as ‘deities’?
The simplest answer to the question ‘do Buddhists believe in God or gods?’ would be, no, not in God,

No believe in god. Definitely fit Atheist definition.

and gods exist but are just another impermanent life form, or even for some more liberal, modernist Buddhists, poetic metaphors.

So gods only exist in poetic metaphors, now?

However, particularly in some forms of Mahayana Buddhism, the multitude of different Buddhas and bodhisattvas can functionally resemble gods and goddesses, in that they are worshipped, pictured, and prayed to

Angels and demons who can't create universe and life.All are under Buddha's human karma ( dhamma )

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: EasternShadow
That different Buddhists teach contradicting stuff isn't surprising. "Brahmā is [still] a leading god (deva) and heavenly king in Buddhism." exactly as wikipedia states no matter what other teachings are taught by Buddhists as well (cause they also can't keep their story straight).

What kind of leading god and heavenly king would surpass Buddha? None. Zero. Buddha is the top tier divine figure.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Whether they deny a creator or worship these gods like Brahma is completely irrelevant. Whether some guy states that "The Buddhists attacked the concept of Brahma" or that "The early Buddhist approach to Brahma was to reject any creator aspect, while retaining the Brahmavihara aspects of Brahma, in the Buddhist value system." is completely irrelevant to your comment that said (and I was responding to):

It is relevant because it explains Brahma is been rejected.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Which your own chosen quotation refutes there at the end:

Deity Brahma is also found in the samsara doctrine and cosmology of early Buddhism.

Take note the EARLY BUDDHISM. It is no longer exist. Therefore I refute nothing.

originally posted by: whereislogic
I'm sorry, but that's not rejecting deities (or "rejecting the gods" to take one definition for "atheism" or "atheist", the latter being a person that is "rejecting the gods", any type), that is claiming the existence of the "deity Brahma", "a leading god...in Buddhism". If you call something a "god/deity" you're not "rejecting the gods/deities" no matter how you redefine or 'downsize' "god/deity" thereafter and regardless if one worships them or not or whether or not one thinks this god is a creator. Those are all red herrings I think (that's the description I'm going with, with all due respect).

I could point to more sources and Buddha's own atheism quotes.

No gods as we known from pagan to christian would be subjected to human's karma like Buddhist gods and goddess. It's clear. Buddhist gods and goddess are nothing more than "poetic metaphors". But to be fair, I assume this so-called Buddhist gods and goddess are angels and demons, since it is known in the Bible than man can command demons, just like Buddha's karma is above all Buddhist gods and goddess.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Sounds to me like you are correct on that point.

a reply to: EasternShadow
So what, quite a number of Buddhists still worship gods (as shown by the examples already mentioned), Buddhist texts still claim the existence of gods, and Buddhism has gods in its teachings (both past and present).

All the rest, red herrings.

The deities that we associate with ‘Hinduism’ and other deities from countries to which Buddhism spread are not denied[/not rejected] but seen as other inhabitants of the complex and multi-dimensional universe or universes in which we dwell.

What's the point in repeating what's already mentioned there at the end which is irrelevant to whether or not these are referred to as "The deities" as they are at the beginning of the sentence and in Buddhist texts and teachings? Why not focus on the bolded parts of that statement for a change instead of drawing attention away from it by talking about the latter part and the belief in a creator? "The deities...are not denied[/not rejected]" in Buddhism (cause it was describing both contemporary and early Buddhism there, present-day Buddhism and early Buddhism).
Buddhism is not "without gods". Both modern (forms of) and early Buddhism does not "deny/reject the gods".

I'm beginning to think you're deliberately being obtuse and repeating your irrelevant arguments to distract from your erronuous claim:

Buddhism reject deity/ies.

Which you don't seem to want to admit you're wrong, or even just maybe or partly* wrong about. *: just counting the forms of Buddhism that don't deny/reject the gods, cause that's still part of Buddhism in the present. Do you have an Islamic background? Or are you more into Eastern philosophy (as your accountname might suggest)?

Although some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism, both the earliest ancient texts and contemporary [present-day] Buddhist societies feature deities and ‘supernatural’ beings galore.

It seems you are demonstrating exactly what was described in the bolded part there. Downplay all you want, it's not going to change the fact that Buddhism does not deny/reject the gods/deities. It claims their existence and describes them, or to put it the way it's phrased above, present-day "Buddhist societies feature deities and ‘supernatural’ beings galore" just like the "ancient [Buddhist] texts".

Did you ever go through any of the routines depicted from 4:06 - 4:45 in the video below or something similar (and in the screencapture)?

a reply to: EasternShadow


Wrathful Deities and Compassionate Bodhisattvas: Aides of the Buddhist Faith
Wrathful Deities - from Journey into Buddhism Trilogy
Tibet Buddha and gods

Description of that last video:

This is the new video for "Deity of Tibet" shows only some points used in the exhibition "Treasures of Tibet."

A link in the comments leads to:

Tibetan Deity: Five Personal Gods Main Page
...
In Tibetan Buddhism the arrangement of the gods are different:
mo lha - Female God, located at the left armpit of an individual.
srog lha - Life God, located in the heart of an individual.
pho lha - Male God, located at the right armpit.
yul lha - Regional God, located at the crown of the head of an individual.
dra la - Enemy God, located at the right shoulder.

[whereislogic: sounds like a 5-in-1 God, a Quintinity?]

Source: Tibetan Deity: Five Personal Gods Main Page (Himalayan Art Resources)

'Nuff said.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: EasternShadow
So what, quite a number of Buddhists still worship gods (as shown by the examples already mentioned),

Then do tell me how they worship god, because there is no place for god in Buddhism.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Buddhist texts still claim the existence of gods, and Buddhism has gods in its teachings (both past and present).

How is this devas no different than demons or angels? They can't create universe and life. They're under Buddha's Dhamma.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Which you don't seem to want to admit you're wrong, or even just maybe or partly* wrong about. *: just counting the forms of Buddhism that don't deny/reject the gods, cause that's still part of Buddhism in the present.

How can I admit wrong when I have pointed to you the many links that explicitly state Buddhism rejected God the creator, being atheist and the many gods that are not gods? Your own two links also stated Buddhism rejected God the Creator, the supreme being etc..Heck your reonline links also explicitly stated No God.

If you are right, then do tell me how Buddhist worship their gods.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Do you have an Islamic background? Or are you more into Eastern philosophy (as your accountname might suggest)?

I was born to a catholic family, was raised to follow catholics tradition and studied at catholics missionary school. But it was never enough. There is something wrong with the "truth". So I came to Islamic school, earned my degree and still it was "wrong". I spend the next few years study other religions such Buddhism and Hinduism. I've been to church, mosque, Hindu's temple and Buddhist temple. I had observed their prayers and I knew their traditions and laws. I even prayed in their own respectively religion. I made friends with a lot of Islamic's teachers as well as Hindu and Buddhist Monks. I have studied meditation and conducted several personal OOBE experiments. So I'm well aware of spiritual realm. That is why I always question religion doctrine. It's not that I totally dismiss all the past and present theology. It's how you present your case in light of god. But enough of that.

My nick name has nothing to do with my background. Despite heavily influenced by Eastern Philosophy, the closest I could believe in religion is christian-judaism, because of it's almost balance life and death matter. Even so it is still require a lot of work.

So yes, I have at least basic knowledge of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islamic theology. And that is why I do not agree with your notion that Buddhism is theist. Heck you are the only one as far as I concern, insist Buddhist is theist.

Tell me how do Buddhist worship god or gods?

Atheism is the lack of beleif, the rejection of the claim that god/s exist and the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim. /thread

originally posted by: EasternShadow
If you are right, then do tell me how Buddhist worship their gods.

The text I quoted from " THINK PIECE Ultimate reality, God and gods in Buddhism" explains how Buddhists in the past and quite a number of Buddhists in the present still worship beings they themselves refer to as "gods/deities" just like that article does (and it's shown in the videos). But again, you talk about it as if worship is somehow a requirement to be proven in response to your claim:

Buddhism reject deity/ies.

That claim does not say:

"Present-day Buddhism does not worship a deity or deities." Which would still be wrong because it still implies there's only one form of present-day Buddhism when phrased like that, instead you could say that "some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking do not encourage worship of any gods/deities", but that doesn't lead to the same conclusion you wanted to arrive at regarding Buddhism and atheism, and it's leaving out the inconvenient* facts regarding those Buddhists who do worship various gods, and teach about their existence (*: inconvenient for that line of argumentation regarding Buddhism and atheism. Polytheists are not atheists.).

Regarding the original claim you made, it doesn't matter if they worship them or not, it doesn't matter how they define or describe these deities/gods as something other than creators or supreme beings. As long as they call them "deities/gods", as Buddhists have done both in the past and the present as clearly demonstrated by the things I've been quoting, you've been quoting and as shown in the videos about that subject (where "Deity", "gods" "the god ....", etc. are all terms that are used), and thus in so doing claim the existence of beings they refer to as "deities/gods", then it shows that the statement (premise) on which your conclusion regarding Buddhism and atheism stands or falls, is wrong.

And I've done you one better than just 'tell you how some Buddhists are still worshipping various beings they refer to as gods/deities' (or quote others using those terminologies, including those who are teaching what they refer to as Buddhism with the intent to gain adherents for their brand of Buddhism), I've even shown you how they still worship their gods in my last comment (but again, worship not being a requirement to show that your claim was wrong and based on the behaviour described as: "some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism"; they seem to do this because it's more appealing to the Western market, but as shown in the videos, In Asia these gods or some of these gods are still quite popular and even worshipped).

So now you want to switch to debating whether or not they are worshipped? I only showed that to show that your claims regarding that subject were wrong as well when you said for example:

It's clear. Buddhist gods and goddess are nothing more than "poetic metaphors".

No, it's clear that to some Buddhists they are gods cause they call them gods and even go as far as going to a temple to pray to a statue of them (or perform some kind of ritual for them), ending up worshipping them and talking about worshipping "gods" (or "the guardian god ....", for example; if it's not a god, they shouldn't call them gods in their teachings, you don't want to start sounding like Lawrence Krauss and say things like "by nothing I don't mean nothing", which is what part of your argument boils down to: 'by gods they don't mean gods, it's just poetic metaphor', or 'they aren't creators', or any other variation of the latter part of that argument). And what's also clear is that "Although some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism", other Buddhists teach about the existence of gods and goddesses without referring to them as "poetic metaphors", which again, wouldn't even matter if they did, they still call them gods/deities so they don't reject the existence of beings called gods, no matter what other definitions or descriptions are used for them, no matter if they "can't create universe and life", no matter if "they're under Buddha's Dhamma" and no matter if they actually worship them or not.

Angels and demons as mentioned in the bible are defined as gods in the bible, or you can phrase that as they are called "gods" in the bible ("spirit beings" is one possible definition for "gods" as the word is used in the bible and Hebrew and Greek languages; "heavenly being" is another with similar meaning since all beings in heaven are spirits, including Jehovah God a.k.a. God Almighty; which reminds me of the term "heavenly king" for Brahma as used on wikipedia). But again, a red herring, doesn't take anything away from Buddhists in the past and present teaching about the existence of beings they refer to as "gods", "Deity" such as in the phrase "Deity of Tibet", "a guardian god", "Buddhists Gods and Godesses of Banipur", "The Buddhist Guardian Deity", "Wrathful Deities", etc.

All of that proves that Buddhism in the past and present has and has had quite a number of adherents that do not reject/deny the existence of gods/deities. Just like the teachings in the Buddhist texts teach about gods. And that "some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism" to appease and attract a Western and more modern market, I suspect. And doing so by saying it's just a "poetic metaphor" for example (one possible argument to do that; you demonstrating a range of arguments to downplay "the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism" by conveniently talking past the evidence I've shown of present-day Buddhists teaching about the existence of gods and even worshipping them, even teaching about someone or something named "Deity of Tibet" and talking past the evidence in the ancient Buddhist texts regarding this issue, even arguing that that doesn't count somehow as "Buddhism" in your claims when you say "Buddhism" and then switch later to arguing "Take note the EARLY BUDDHISM. It is no longer exist. Therefore I refute nothing." As if early Buddhism isn't "Buddhism" when you make a claim about "Buddhism").

originally posted by: whereislogic
That claim does not say:

"Present-day Buddhism does not worship a deity or deities." Which would still be wrong because it still implies there's only one form of present-day Buddhism when phrased like that, instead you could say that "some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking do not encourage worship of any gods/deities", but that doesn't lead to the same conclusion you wanted to arrive at regarding Buddhism and atheism, and it's leaving out the inconvenient* facts regarding those Buddhists who do worship various gods, and teach about their existence (*: inconvenient for that line of argumentation regarding Buddhism and atheism. Polytheists are not atheists.).

You do realize your one long sentence contain both "but" and "instead", which render both of your propositions null?
Buddhist is not polytheist. Hindu is polytheist.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Regarding the original claim you made, it doesn't matter if they worship them or not, it doesn't matter how they define or describe these deities/gods as something other than creators or supreme beings. As long as they call them "deities/gods", as Buddhists have done both in the past and the present as clearly demonstrated by the things I've been quoting, you've been quoting and as shown in the videos about that subject (where "Deity", "gods" "the god ....", etc. are all terms that are used), and thus in so doing claim the existence of beings they refer to as "deities/gods", then it shows that the statement (premise) on which your conclusion regarding Buddhism and atheism stands or falls, is wrong.

So if they define gods, as "poetic metaphor" and "image of man" ( man made imagination ), does that they prove they believe in god or gods? If that the case, then this argument is pointless, because we are talking a different side of coin.

originally posted by: whereislogic
And I've done you one better than just 'tell you how some Buddhists are still worshipping various beings they refer to as gods/deities' (or quote others using those terminologies, including those who are teaching what they refer to as Buddhism with the intent to gain adherents for their brand of Buddhism), I've even shown you how they still worship their gods in my last comment (but again, worship not being a requirement to show that your claim was wrong and based on the behaviour described as: "some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism"; they seem to do this because it's more appealing to the Western market, but as shown in the videos, In Asia these gods or some of these gods are still quite popular and even worshipped).

Who was Buddhist god(s) again? Poetic methapor. Yeah right.

originally posted by: whereislogic
So now you want to switch to debating whether or not they are worshipped? I only showed that to show that your claims regarding that subject were wrong as well when you said for example:

I said, there is no room for god in Buddhism. Worshipping gods is useless because a. ) this gods do nothing b.) It offers no form of redemption, forgiveness, no heavenly hope, or a final judgment to those practicing its system and c.) It is against the tantric practise.

I challenge you because you do not understand all the 3 reasons I mentioned above. All you can understand is red herring.

originally posted by: whereislogic
No, it's clear that to some Buddhists they are gods cause they call them gods and even go as far as going to a temple to pray to a statue of them (or perform some kind of ritual for them), ending up worshipping them and talking about worshipping "gods" (or "the guardian god ....", for example; if it's not a god, they shouldn't call them gods in their teachings, you don't want to start sounding like Lawrence Krauss and say things like "by nothing I don't mean nothing", which is what part of your argument boils down to: 'by gods they don't mean gods, it's just poetic metaphor', or 'they aren't creators', or any other variation of the latter part of that argument).

That's exactly what your reonline source wrote. Buddhist God(s) or Godess exist in poetic metaphor. In other word, it simply meant god(s) and goddess are man's imagination. Or better word, No god. You are not very familiar with Buddhism's sarcastic view, do you?

originally posted by: whereislogic
And what's also clear is that "Although some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking play down the role of gods and goddesses in Buddhism",

In other word, they mocked the gods and goddess.

originally posted by: whereislogic
other Buddhists teach about the existence of gods and goddesses without referring to them as "poetic metaphors",

Sure, other Buddhist teach god and goddess are the image of man. Total opposite to Christian, Moslem and Judaism concept of god.

In the Brahma-Nimantanika Sutta & Culatahnasankhaya Sutta, the Buddha visits 'gods', who are obviously human beings with super-normal spiritual attainments.
Do you understand what it mean by "gods who are obviously human beings"?

Do you know what sarcastism is?

originally posted by: whereislogic
which again, wouldn't even matter if they did, they still call them gods/deities so they don't reject the existence of beings called gods, no matter what other definitions or descriptions are used for them, no matter if they "can't create universe and life", no matter if "they're under Buddha's Dhamma" and no matter if they actually worship them or not.

It matter because you fail to see how the Buddhist downplay or mocked the gods or the goddess. You fail to see how they twist the existence of gods into gibberish philosophical absurdity. You can only understand red herring without even bother to ponder the meaning.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Buddhist texts regarding this issue, even arguing that that doesn't count somehow as "Buddhism" in your claims when you say "Buddhism" and then switch later to arguing "Take note the EARLY BUDDHISM. It is no longer exist. Therefore I refute nothing." As if early Buddhism isn't "Buddhism" when you make a claim about "Buddhism").

That because you don't understand Buddhism is an ever
changing philosophy and a complete man-made doctrine.

Do you understand early christian sects such as Ebionites and Marcionites do not represent catholics today?

It's your right to believe in Buddhism's gods absurdity. But I've been to pagoda before and was trained with Buddha's tantric practise. So I know exactly what I am talking about. It's like trying to convince the trinitarian that Jesus is not god, eventhough the Bible explicitly mentioned YHWH is the only god. The only difference is, wiki isn't the Bible to Buddhism.

You can forget Brahma as "the leading gods and heavenly king" because Buddha is devatideva—“god above the gods.” Enough said.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Sorry for the late response--I take the weekends off of ATS.

Anyhoo, I understand what you're saying, but we just differ on the opinion of whether or not exposure to the topic mandates a positive or negative belief system surrounding the topic.

Look at it this way--blueberries are blue when ripe. This is known, and this is why they are named what they are...this is understood. Just because I have been exposed to these concepts does not mean that my brain must also have a dedicated function to believe that they are not any other color of the rainbow.

I have accepted that they are blue, I have proven to myself that they are blue, so that is the extent of my concern on the topic and do not need to put any other sort of mental processes toward the topic.

The same goes with the concept of god(s), IMO. When I was younger, I was convinced that the Christian god existed and I subscribed to the belief system because it lacked tangible facts--I could not go to the grocery store and see the god for my own eyes, or go to a farm and see god existing in some sort of natural habitat.

As I grew older at the end of my teens and into my early 20s, I wanted to look into this lack of proof, so I looked into the history of religions and gods, and after doing nearly two decades of research, I have concluded in my own mind that this concept of creator gods are not reality--therefore, a concept that I once believed, I no longer believe.

I did go through a phase of hardcore atheism, stating that the thought that god(s) exist is just ridiculous nonsense--I have since softened my stance on it and not I'm what one might consider an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. And that harkens back to the point of proof; a lack of proof sent me on my quest to research religions and their histories, and a lack of proof keeps me from being a hardcore atheist, because it's impossible to prove nonexistence.

But that doesn't mean that, even in my hardcore atheist days, that I believed that there was no god, I just concluded that the lack of any real proof or evidence of the biblical and mythical god(s) pointed to a lack of these beliefs being accurate and/or true.

There may be people out there who may consider all of this a lesson in semantics, but I think (maybe believe?) that he difference matters in this debate, which began in the thread title as comparing atheism to a religion.

It is definitely not a religion, because not believing in something lacks all of the elements of a religion, but as we're doing, I would go even further to say that we are capable of 'voids of belief' around topics to which we are exposed, and I would argue that atheism and agnosticism are examples of that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Its all good

It seems that we have a relatively similar history on the topic. Ill hit on the previous discussion in a bit, but I'm a subscriber to the whole "God(s) of the Gaps" train of thought. Where, deities were invoked to cover lacking knowledge. However, it seems to me that all of it was pointing to something that was actually there. While much has been explained, like the mechanics behind lightning, there are still plenty of mysteries. And, in those, I firmly believe there are mysteries beyond the limits of human comprehension. A train of thought that, perhaps, is anathema and blasphemy to the modern atheist and/or scientific social group..

Basically though, I think the religions of history are describing a Plato's Cave-esque elephant in the shape of the universe. I'm also probably influenced by the overall concept that to control large groups of people, it isnt at all necessary (or even effective) to foster universal acceptance, but to define that narrative itself. Then, whether it is accepted or rejected is immaterial as long as most stay within the confines of the story.

In that, it wouldn't preclude a "Creator God(s)," but it would suggest such a system is only partly described by the entirety of the worlds religions, at best. Even the most militant modern, western atheist will have framed the topic according to major religions, for better or worse.

Now, when it comes back to the previous discussion, I view it all as simply different beliefs. The "lack of beliefs" from one to another seems inherent to our existence, even within the same social group.

In that, while I feel modern, western atheism being a religion or not is debatable.. it doesn't preclude the potential for it to become one. Replete with perceived universally accepted dogma, conversion attempts, zealotry, gatherings, appeals to authority, a "priest" class, and "appropriate" reaction/interaction with competing systems of thought.

One major difference between our perspectives may be that I base my categorization on behavior and neurology rather than anything else. I actually see political groups in much the same way, where much of how each group defines themselves is as something they are not, or as the antithesis of the opposing group. But, I can't say I'm convinced that makes either group any less political (or religious for that matter).

I think the biggest cultural obstacle in seeing religious potential in atheism is that, as many see it, the modern atheist is opposed to "religions." This is a tenet of the social group. Historically, and interestingly, this creates the perception that one can not be, or be like, what they oppose. We see this fascinating tendency constantly even on ATS. Up to and including the idea that because the opposing group is biased that the one(s) opposing them can not be biased. When, really, its just two opposing neurological structures on precisely the same topic, defined by our Cultural Story.

I think that for clarity, I must also make a distinction between "mental processes" and "neurological structures." The former might be seen as the conscious direction of our thoughts, while the latter are the "tracks" that those trains of thought run upon.

Those "tracks" will exist whether or not there are trains running on them and when we decide to visit a certain topic, it will be on the rails that have already been established through exposure. In the analogy, the blue blueberry may very well be the track that is actually in operation, but if there were no tracks pertaining to the absence of other colors, we wouldn't be able to process that it isn't those colors. A true "void" would precipitate little more than uncertainty, but the very moment we begin to explore it, we start building those rails even if they will never be used by the trains.

Kind of a rough one there.. but I think it harkens back to if dissimilar trains of thought between individuals can dictate whether or not any tracks exist in the closed system of one individual.

And, maybe that's an annoyingly verbose way of whittling down to the core of our conversation; if my track veers right where yours veers left, does that accurately indicate a lack of tracks altogether? Certainly, I "lack" rails that veer left there and then, but does that mean I lack rails in the area altogether? Is the difference in layout a foregone conclusion between any and all individuals, regardless of which social group we do (or do not) identify with, or can it accurately be used as a foundation for an entire social groups train of thought? I'm not sure the latter is a strong foundation, as those exact same disparities will exist even within say, Christianity. The mental processes (trains) may show one story, while the neurological structures (rails) might show something else entirely.

In general, I think the "religious tendency" is all too human and that it ends up being more accurate and effective to explore it behaviorally, on both the individual and group scale, to avoid the obvious pitfalls that are within that social cave. In essence, the negative attributes of this behavior becomes far too easy to overlook when we base things on where we think the trains go instead of the tracks themselves.

Apologies for length, I really do think its an interesting topic.. And, its one that's about as common as a fruitful conversation between a liberal and a conservative.

originally posted by: EasternShadow

originally posted by: whereislogic
That claim does not say:

"Present-day Buddhism does not worship a deity or deities." Which would still be wrong because it still implies there's only one form of present-day Buddhism when phrased like that, instead you could say that "some forms of modernist Buddhist thinking do not encourage worship of any gods/deities", but that doesn't lead to the same conclusion you wanted to arrive at regarding Buddhism and atheism, and it's leaving out the inconvenient* facts regarding those Buddhists who do worship various gods, and teach about their existence (*: inconvenient for that line of argumentation regarding Buddhism and atheism. Polytheists are not atheists.).

You do realize your one long sentence contain both "but" and "instead", which render both of your propositions null?
Buddhist is not polytheist. Hindu is polytheist.

I can't see anything wrong with my sentence. To me it looks like you are twisting and misreading what I'm saying on purpose. I never said "Buddhists are polytheists" or anything that might give the impression that there is only 1 type of Buddhist, which you are constantly doing and as you did in your original claim and again in the claim above. The Buddhists depicted in the video entitled "Buddhists giving worship to their gods" (which is an accurate honest and appropiate title) are appriopiately and correctly described as polytheists though. But you were responding to my phrase "Polytheists are not atheists." If you disagree with that statement you can say so, if not, then you can address why I'm wrong in concluding that the Buddhists depicted in the video I just mentioned are polytheists. And please don't ignore that they are referred to as "gods" in the title of the video and by those Buddhists themselves. If they aren't really gods, they shouldn't have been calling them "gods" all this time. They are not rejecting/denying the existence of these gods.

Here's another "god" that some present-day Buddhists believe in (notice the word "deity" being used a couple of times by the interviewer, and the term "The spirit" as used by the Dalai Lama, remember what I mentioned regarding "gods" as the word is used in the bible being "spirits"?):

Between brackets is my synonym as a reminder regarding what I've been saying about "beings called gods":

Dorje Shugden... is an entity[/being] associated with the Gelug school, the newest of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
...
Dorje Shugden is variously looked upon as a destroyed gyalpo, a minor mundane protector, a major mundane protector, an enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is that of a gyalpo, or as an enlightened major protector whose outward appearance is enlightened.
...
...was a "gyalpo" "angry and vengeful spirit" of South Tibet...
...
Geshe Kelsang takes the elevation of Dorje Shugden’s ontological status another step further, emphasising that the deity is enlightened in both essence and appearance. [the page for Geshe Kelsang says that he is a "Buddhist monk, meditation teacher, scholar, and author."; he's still alive]
... this deity...

Source: Dorje Shugden - Wikipedia

Gyalpo spirits are one of the eight classes of haughty gods and spirits... in Tibetan mythology and religion.

Source: Gyalpo spirits - Wikipedia

These Buddhists teaching these things* as if that is the case (the reality of the matter), certainly do not reject/deny the existence of these beings/entities that they refer to as "gods/deities" and "spirits", in their teachings. The opposite is true, they claim that these beings/entities called "gods/deities" actually exist. *: including those I've shown before in the videos or quotations (primarily the videos)

Btw, worship of these gods is not a requirement for "polytheism" in the definition I'm looking at now, which uses "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods." "Doctrine" being a synonym for "teaching" is the part I'm focussing on above, the teachings about beings called "gods/deities" and their existence. But don't ignore the "or". The definition is from dictionary.com.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: JoshuaCox
...
The convenient change to "a lack of belief" is to avoid the so-called "burden of proof" ...and to help in debates about that subject, or when ridiculing any sort of belief while denying the existence of their own beliefs/views/opinions/ideas.

The guy in the video below describes the situation I was talking about above also quite decently, starting just after 10 minutes (till 10:45 and one more point at 10:57):

After 24:32 they have a little more to say about the question in the title of this thread, most relevant parts coming up shortly after 26:30.