Muslims point to the character of Prophet Muhammad pbuh as the pinnacle of charity, kindness, justice... basically morality. In addition we have the other Prophets such as Moses pbuh and Jesus pbuh.
These figures and their teachings and have served as the inspiration for billions to follow in their shadows and uplift their lives. They have moved the entire world with their deeds and most of all, devotion to Allah. They turned savages into saints. They lived lives of simplicity. The Prophet Muhammad pbuh only owned the bare necessities of life and left only his mule and his small home after his death. Among his last words were: “We the community of Prophets are not inherited. Whatever we leave is for charity.”
What do they have in common? They were the most religious and pious human beings in history.
Where are the atheist parallels? What atheist has ever moved so many heart? Served as an example for so many lives?
None has. There has never been a comparable atheist in history to these figures. Why not? If these Prophets were liars or mad, surely it would be a simple matter to outdo them?
Important Note: Do not start talking about "religious people have done bad things in their name" because this is about the PROPHETS. Moreover, we all know that none of these religions ask us to be rapists or thieves and those sinful actions have no basis in the character of the Prophets. So drop it.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 06-26-2009 at 07:23 PM.
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
To answer the thread's question, I suppose Buddha counts, in terms of influence.
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Second, I see MUCH more honour in doing good for the sake of good than doing good and then advertising your ideology or religion. That atheists who do great things for society don't come out pushing "atheism" is admirable.
Please. Off-hand I can think of Richard Dawkins, who, while introducing the world to the concept of the meme, also never misses an opportunity to push atheism.
I with more religious people would do good works without an attached infomercial.
I think all people should help others without an attached infomercial of their beliefs, religious or not.
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Many atheists see religion as a crutch for desperate or weak minded people
So it necessarily is?
If your loved one dies and somebody says "She's in a better place now", how does it benefit anybody for me to attack that comforting thought and say "No, she's just worm food"? Would be kind of pointlessly cruel of me to disrupt your comforting fantasy, would it not?
That particular example is a bad one because it has less to do with disrupting a comforting fantasy and more to do with being outright disrespectful to the recently departed. Belief systems don't enter the equation in this example, other than basic human empathy and etiquette.
This whole, tiresome, 'point' is really just a legacy of the Qur'an vs. Bible debate, which in a Buddhist context is irrelevant. Buddhist teachings are as 'authentic' today as they have always been as they are accepted or rejected on their merit and by experience of their efficacy, not solely on the authority of a particular individual. That was true even in the Buddha's time, indeed it was the basis on which he himself said his teachings should be taken.
Nobody pretends that any Buddhist text is a verbatim report of the words of Siddhartha Gautama; the initial tradition was transmitted orally for several centuries before being written down for a start. If, though, you are somehow suggesting what he actually said and, in this context, how he behaved was somehow radically different from what many millions over more than two millennia have found no reason to doubt it really is up to you to "put up or shut up".
That is, frankly, just biased rubbish I thought twice about dignifying with a reply at all. I assume you couldn't come up with any constructive response in the context of the actual debate on the topic you introduced. The suggestion that no systems of philosophy and morality have flourished and indeed continue to flourish because of the Buddha's teaching is both ignorant and absurd. Buddhism has never made any claims to be a political system. Oh, and even your comment about previously warring people is completely wrong... you 'don't see' because you can't be bothered to look.
Atheism is not the denial of God, it is the denial of the existence of God. It is also not a religion; and it is therefore meaningless to talk about atheists being 'united' or not... there is no reason for them to be. I'm certainly not 'united' with Gubbleknoucker for obvious reasons! In a different sense Buddhism is not 'united' because it simply has no reason to be. The fundamental beliefs are the same, and without being hamstrung by a need to worry about the exact words of God or a prophet, Buddhists are quite free to disagree about the details. They have never fought a war over them.
This is just plain silly. A banner 'saying' what? Like political ideologies, religions have positive manifestos and you can write those on banners, imaginary or otherwise. Atheism is the belief something doesn't exist.
By analogy, it's like comparing a group of Manchester United supporters with their scarves, shirts and banners with one guy standing in the park with a banner saying 'Soccer is boring '. Just because he isn't surrounded by a crowd of thousands doesn't mean there aren't plenty who agree with him.
1. What kind of an answer was that? You have no evidence that what is said today is said by Buddha and moreover, just because as you say "many people" don't doubt it, doesn't give it any more merit than many people believing the Vedas are uncorrupted.
2. Your example of Buddha is off topic. I don't see atheists saying "what would Buddha do?" so drop it.
3. Atheism is a belief like you said. You don't have any leaders providing an example and unifying force for that belief. Just because something isn't a religion, doesn't mean people can't be united upon it. Buddhists are free to disagree huh? I believe the Japanese religion during ww2 was a twisted from of Buddhism. Anyways, buddhists fought in wars just like any other people but whether they fought it under the banner of Buddhism is different. The religion, to my knowlege, doesn't give a world view to strive or any reason to spread their version of the truth for so I can understand why.
Let me reiterate my second point in the previous post.
Buddha/Buddhism is not a valid answer to the thread's question. I don't see atheists saying "what would Buddha do?" or being in any way shape or form taking him as a model for their collective lives and being united upon it.
Let me reiterate my second point in the previous post.
Buddha/Buddhism is not a valid answer to the thread's question. I don't see atheists saying "what would Buddha do?" or being in any way shape or form taking him as a model for their collective lives and being united upon it.
So please drop it.
No. You can 'reiterate' all you like but just because you don't like an answer is no reason to 'drop it'. Actually a lot of atheists think just that; they happen to be called 'Buddhists'. Again, you don't see because you don't look.
You have no evidence that what is said today is said by Buddha and moreover, just because as you say "many people" don't doubt it, doesn't give it any more merit than many people believing the Vedas are uncorrupted
The Buddha's teachings represent a particular solution to a particular problem, the cessation of suffering. To Buddhists, those teachings as we know them today make far more sense as a candidate solution both intellectually and experientially than any of the alternatives, including that offered by the Abrahamic religions. That is all the evidence that is needed and is, I venture to suggest, far more than Islam or Christianity is capable of offering.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
To answer the thread's question, I suppose Buddha counts.
Another example of a 'non-prophet', although perhaps not strictly an atheist (as we have no idea what he may have believed in that sense.. except taht it was extremely unlikely to be monotheist) would be Confucius. In the context of duty, morality and indeed good government his teachings have had and still have a massive influence on billions of people.
No. You can 'reiterate' all you like but just because you don't like an answer is no reason to 'drop it'. Actually a lot of atheists think just that; they happen to be called 'Buddhists'. Again, you don't see because you don't look.
Another example of a 'non-prophet', although perhaps not strictly an atheist (as we have no idea what he may have believed in that sense) would be Confucius. In the context of duty, morality and indeed good government his teachings have had and still have a massive influence on billions of people.
Really? Buddhist atheists are not even close to the majority. Hardly unified. Next example. Moreover Buddhism doesn't even SPREAD atheism which is what a good atheist leader would do. He sets an example of how the atheistic stance on life is better and people unify and agree on his teachings and thoughts.
Atheists have never done that. Moreover atheist "buddhists" who believe in reincarnation sounds contradictory.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 06-27-2009 at 10:33 PM.
Some can indeed be awfully preachy. But it's only because they're telling the truth, unlike all those religious preachers.
Obviously.
As I recall, a universal negative is impossible to prove philosophically right? Atheists deny the existence of God and have faith that there isn't one.
Really? Buddhist atheists are not even close to the majority. Hardly unified. Next example. Moreover Buddhism doesn't even SPREAD atheism which is what a good atheist leader would do. He sets an example of how the atheistic stance on life is better and people unify and agree on his teachings and thoughts.
Your whole 'argument' seems to depend on some ludicrous strawman, that atheism is some sort of alternative religion that needs 'leaders' and 'unity'. It isn't.. it is simply the belief that God or gods do not exist.
Why, therefore, would a 'good atheist leader' (and surely by now even you can grasp that atheists have no need of a leader) even suggest there is an atheistic 'slant on life' that extends beyond one basic belief, let alone that it is somehow 'better' than all the alternatives? Even if there were, logically the atheist position is 'neutral' and doesn't exclude the possibility it might even be worse.. perhaps people do actually live happier and more productive lives if they believe in God and and life after death. Just because they happen to believe it, though, doesn't make it true...
Moreover atheist "buddhists" who believe in reincarnation sounds contradictory.
Only to someone unfamiliar with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, which is not the same as the Hindu one. Neither, though, contradicts an atheist viewpoint in any way. Karma and dependent origination is responsible, not God or gods.
Atheists deny the existence of God and have faith that there isn't one.
Atheists believe there is no God. You can't generalize, of course, but most believe that on the basis that, in their opinion, the weight of available evidence suggests it to be true. That may be a judgement call, but it is not 'faith'. Faith, in the religious context, is belief without or in spite of such evidence.
Atheists believe there is no God. You can't generalize, of course, but mostbelieve that on the basis that, in their opinion, the weight of available evidence suggests it to be true.
In light of the above statement would I be correct to then say that Atheism if a belief?
In light of the above statement would I be correct to then say that Atheism if a belief?
Peace
Depends on who you ask. "Atheism" is a word that many disagree on. Some (mostly the religious folks) will say that it means "a disbelief in the existence of God". Others (and most atheists I've met) define it instead as "a lack of belief in a god or gods". This semantic issue sometimes leads to confusion and arguments.
In light of the above statement would I be correct to then say that Atheism if a belief?
Yes. It is actually defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" or, in reverse "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" (wordnetweb.
The second is perhaps the most illuminating in the context of this discussion. How many times does a 'lack of belief' in something lead to vast worldwide popular movements, leaders, 'unity' and people dying for the cause? The answer is pretty much 'never'; what may sometimes appear a similar response is actually a positive one in favour of some alternative. For example, people do not take to the streets and demonstrate because they lack the belief that the current government should be running the country. They take to the streets and demonstrate because they believe somebody else should be running the country.. even if the aren't totally sure who that somebody might be.
is what a good atheist leader would do. He sets an example of how the atheistic stance on life is better and people unify and agree on his teachings and thoughts.
Have you read any of the responses to your posts here? Are you asking your questions in sincerity or are you just hoping to rile people up? I ask this in all seriousness. This clear misunderstanding of what atheism is has already been answered at least 10 times to you in this thread and others.
Your whole 'argument' seems to depend on some ludicrous strawman, that atheism is some sort of alternative religion that needs 'leaders' and 'unity'. It isn't.. it is simply the belief that God or gods do not exist.
Why, therefore, would a 'good atheist leader' (and surely by now even you can grasp that atheists have no need of a leader) even suggest there is an atheistic 'slant on life' that extends beyond one basic belief, let alone that it is somehow 'better' than all the alternatives? Even if there were, logically the atheist position is 'neutral' and doesn't exclude the possibility it might even be worse.. perhaps people do actually live happier and more productive lives if they believe in God and and life after death. Just because they happen to believe it, though, doesn't make it true...
Only to someone unfamiliar with the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, which is not the same as the Hindu one. Neither, though, contradicts an atheist viewpoint in any way. Karma and dependent origination is responsible, not God or gods.
You know, beyond your condescending tone, you make poor points. I never said atheism was a religion. Moreover, who says it needs to be a religion to be unified? Can't people be unified under an idea? Beyond that, I suspect you know that there has never been an atheist leader who espoused morals without God and led a moral revolution like the Prophets. The lack of atheist leaders is not because they "don't need them" which is a ridiculous statement for any denomination of people. Just look at all the fanfare beyond people like Dawkins, off the top of my head.
I also find your attempts at harmonizing forces like karma with an atheistic universe amusing. If there is nothing but our physical world in an atheistic universe, then how can determining forces like Karma exist?
Anyways, from the shambles of your post, I can see that even you understand that there has never been an atheistic parallel to the Prophets despite your collective assertions that religion is not necessary for morality or that it isn't necessary to inspire people and civilizations (not a debate I'm getting into here).
Have you read any of the responses to your posts here? Are you asking your questions in sincerity or are you just hoping to rile people up? I ask this in all seriousness. This clear misunderstanding of what atheism is has already been answered at least 10 times to you in this thread and others.
The only misunderstanding is on your part. How hard is it to try and respond to my assertion that there was no great atheist figure that taught so many people and civilizations to be moral. No atheist philosopher or scholar or anything.
It's a simple matter and I feel like you're dancing around it.
Last edited by AntiKarateKid; 06-28-2009 at 01:31 AM.
I also find your attempts at harmonizing forces like karma with an atheistic universe amusing.
That, I'm afraid, is because you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.
If there is nothing but our physical world in an atheistic universe, then how can determining forces like Karma exist?
Karma is not a 'determining force', it is a process.. specifically the processes of cause and effect that exist quite happily in a purely materialistic model of the universe.
Anyways, from the shambles of your post, I can see that even you understand that there has never been an atheistic parallel to the Prophets despite your collective assertions that religion is not necessary for morality or that it isn't necessary to inspire people and civilizations (not a debate I'm getting into here).
If you can 'see' that I'm afraid you have severe comprehension difficulties. I have already named two such parallels, the Buddha and Confucius. Had you actually taken the trouble to read my posts carefully before spewing such arrogant clap-trap you might have noticed I have never claimed 'religion' is not necessary. I happen to believe it is not, but even Confucianism is viewed as a 'religion' by some. What I have demonstrated not to be necessary are either prophets, the existence of God, or a belief in either.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks