I would like to invite some of my Atheist friends on this Forum to consider what might actually turn out to be the best path for the Atheist - Buddhism.

My conception of the worship of God does not necessarily entail the conventional methods of worship - such as Praise, Prayer, etcetera.

For me the worship of God simply involves a pursuit of harmony and love and perhaps also a living passion for the wonder of existence.

Thus, strictly speaking, it is possible, in my view, for the Atheist mind to actually be a better "worshipper" of God than a Theist who does not actually practive love of his fellow man.

Nevertheless i digress.

Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God. It centres around connecting with "the self" and rising above the mundane cycle of desire inherent in existence and thereby attaining an elevated consciousness (Nirvana) or, as it is said - becoming an "awakened" or "elightened one."

The Four Noble Truths were set forth by the Buddha, Siddharta Gautama shortly after he attained the enlightened state.

They are -

1.The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha):

"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[8][9]

2.Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):

"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[8][9]

3.Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):

"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[8][9]

4.The Path (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:

"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."[10][11]


This seems reasonable, lucid, simple and pure.

In this thread let's discuss the merits of Buddhism, and perhaps see if this is not the ideal worldview for all of us afterall. . .

Atheists, come on board. . . Don't worry, it says nothing about God!

So any takers?

"in brief the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering".

Clinging, which I would call Inertia, is a major root to many many problems. Whosoever would gain his life will lose it, whosoever would lose his life for Christ's sake will find it.

It would be most useful if we can have the perspective of m_nwankwo on the life and identity of the Buddha.

Eminence Nwankwo?

Buddhism! Well, as Buddha himself is said to have said, “Believe nothing no matter who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” So I can see why the OP thinks atheists would love Buddhism.

Is Buddhism not anotther form of Atheism? See this website.

But tell us about the following:

"The historicity of Buddha is accepted by all. But there is no unanimity of the date. In Sri Lanka, 483 BC is accepted as the date of his nirvana while in Burma 544 BC is accepted. In Tibet it is believed to be 835 BC, while in China, 11th century BC is the accepted date. Buddha was an Indian and the Indian Puranic tradition believes that the nirvana took place in 1793 or 1807 BC"

-Hindu Books

Some modern Buddhist apologists have acknowledged that stories about the Buddha are compiled stories from multiple people and multiple events, canonized and amalgamated, there was no singular "Buddha" as is traditionally taught in Buddhism, and no aspect of Buddhism is other than that you'd expect to find in early India. It is entirely possible that there was no Buddha and that the stories of the Buddha's life were merely the same stories of similar lives of other sages, given a new catchy name.

What's your take on this, Deep Sight?

^^^ My take is that it does not matter.

Like you once said - its the message, and not the messenger.

Deep Sight:

^^^ My take is that it does not matter.

Like you once said - its the message, and not the messenger.

Can you correlate the statement above with all your vitriol on High-Christology i.e. the Deity of Christ, as divorced from His message? 

Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is a field of study within Christian theology which is concerned with the nature of Jesus Christ. Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life than with how the human and divine co-exist in one person. Although this study of the inter-relationship of these two natures is the foundation of Christology, some essential sub-topics within the field of Christology include:

* the Incarnation,
* the Resurrection,
* and the salvific work of Jesus (known as soteriology).

Deep Sight:

It would be most useful if we can have the perspective of m_nwankwo on the life and identity of the Buddha.

Eminence Nwankwo?

Hi Deepsight. I am not worthy to be addressed as "Eminence". I will be following the thread and if I percieve an urge to speak on the mission and identity of Buddha, I will gladly do so. Have fun my friend and stay blessed.

Hello m_nwankwo, it's been a long time. I hope you and family are doing fine? Best Wishes!

mavenbox:

Hello m_nwankwo, it's been a long time. I hope you and family are doing fine? Best Wishes!

Hi Mavenbox. Thanks! I and my family are fine. Hope you are fine too? Have fun and stay blessed.

Oh well, initially I was just observing the thread since the OP seemed to have invited atheists more particularly. Whatever. And thanks to you both: Pastor AIO and mavenbox - your comments are very refreshing.

Yet, a few very funny things are going on here.

Deep Sight:

Thus, strictly speaking, it is possible, in my view, for the Atheist mind to actually be a better "worshipper" of God than a Theist who does not actually practive love of his fellow man.

Slow down. There are some questions we must ask, if we're to take you seriously on your "strictly speaking":

(a)   in what possible sense is the atheist ever to engage in the 'worship' of God? What 'God' is that?

(b)   the proposal that such an atheist would be a better worshipper of 'God' than the theist highly suggests that the OP DeepSight is excluding himself from the term 'theist'. Either that, or you acknowledge that you're a very poor worshipper of the 'God' you preach to the atheist.

(c)   but there's more: the whole piece is built on a fundamental fallacy, as in the next line quoted below -

Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God. It centres around connecting with "the self" and rising above the mundane cycle of desire inherent in existence and thereby attaining an elevated consciousness (Nirvana) or, as it is said - becoming an "awakened" or "elightened one."

Lol, Buddhism as a religion actually makes reference to 'god' - the difference is that the concept of 'god' or deity in Buddhism is quite different from what obtains in other religions. It may help to look up 'deva' under Buddhism.

Atheists, come on board. . . Don't worry, it says nothing about God!

But you already did mention 'God' - "it is possible, in my view, for the Atheist mind to actually be a better "worshipper" of God than a Theist" (your OP), no? It just reminds me of the cartoon below -

Hi Viaro. . .

Thanks for your great comments. Funny cartoon!

Let me put a question to you.

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?
Thanks.

I love that cartoon, viaro!!!

Hello DeepSight,

Deep Sight:

Let me put a question to you.

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?

Thanks for your question. I'd like a context for your question before I address it. If you first tell us what 'God' you are intending to discuss and adhere to in all consistency, then I can provide an answer with substance.

mavenbox:

I love that cartoon, viaro!!!

Hehe. . . me too. I just don't want anyone to pull the rug from under us here.

viaro:

Hello DeepSight,

Thanks for your question. I'd like a context for your question before I address it. If you first tell us what 'God' you are intending to discuss and adhere to in all consistency, then I can provide an answer with substance.

Viaro at it again gegen gegen Tape roling Action

^^ Haha. . bro, I'll try to take it easy this time.

viaro:

Hello DeepSight,

Thanks for your question. I'd like a context for your question before I address it. If you first tell us what 'God' you are intending to discuss and adhere to in all consistency, then I can provide an answer with substance.

Viaro -

Let us work with your concept of God as a Christian. That will do.

Awaiting your response.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

Viaro -

Let us work with your concept of God as a Christian. That will do.

No, we can't just swing it on my own Christian concept of God for these reasons:

(a) First, viaro is not a Buddhist - I've noted that the concept of 'god' in Buddhism is quite different from what obtains in other worldviews.

(b) Second, this thread is not about the Christian concept of 'God' - and I would not be entertaining any deviations to turn or swing it otherwise from the Buddhist concept to now the Christian concept of 'God'.

(c) Third, I'm sure the atheists to whom you're preaching 'worship' and 'God' to, already should expect you to delineate what 'God' exactly you're speaking about. If it was a matter of the Christian 'God', the atheist already takes a position that he/she is not a worshipper of 'God', let alone a 'better worshipper' (as you put it). This is why it would look like you're trying to pull the rug from under us if you advance 'worship' and 'God' without specifics from your own matrix.

(d) Fourth, I certainly made clear that you would have to demonstrate that you both adhere to and be consistent with whatever 'God' you want to discuss. If you want me to proceed with the Christian concept of 'God', then please show me clearly that you adhere to the Biblical faith of God as well as be ready to be consistent in your faith in Him. If you cannot do so, then it means that you have a different concept of 'God' that you want to present to the atheist - and that is why it is incumbent upon you to explicate that 'God' for the atheist so he/she could be the desired "better worshipper" that you envisage.

Four points for now. I proceed as soon as you oblige them. Cheers.

I smell a derailment. Let me leave here before I am labelled the culprit. LOL.

viaro:
No, we can't just swing it on my own Christian concept of God for these reasons:[

(a) First, viaro is not a Buddhist - I've noted that the concept of 'god' in Buddhism is quite different from what obtains in other worldviews.

We can swing it on whatever precept of God you are happy to suggest. I will work with any.

In this you might note as a help the broad flavour of the worship of God which I had talked about viz:

Deep Sight:
For me the worship of God simply involves a pursuit of harmony and love and perhaps also a living passion for the wonder of existence.

- which precept of worship is couched in broad terms and as such is not contingent on having ANY precept of God at all or even acknowledging that God exists.

- Thus my willingness to accept any precept of God which you may be willing to advance.

- However as a further help perhaps I should couch my initial statement this way – A man might be an atheist: but love his fellow man. He is as such in loving his fellow man doing the will of God – even if he is not aware of the fact. He is indeed doing the will of God to a greater degree than a Theist who despises all his fellowmen.

- Hence my question to you inquiring if an acknowledgement that God exists is required to do the will of God.

viaro:
Second, this thread is not about the Christian concept of 'God' - and I would not be entertaining any deviations to turn or swing it otherwise from the Buddhist concept to now the Christian concept of 'God'.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

viaro link=topic=411111.msg5673697#msg5673697:
(c) Third, I'm sure the atheists to whom you're preaching 'worship' and 'God' to, already should expect you to delineate what 'God' exactly you're speaking about. If it was a matter of the Christian 'God', the atheist already takes a position that he/she is not a worshipper of 'God', let alone a 'better worshipper' (as you put it). This is why it would look like you're trying to pull the rug from under us if you advance 'worship' and 'God' without specifics from your own matrix.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

viaro link=topic=411111.msg5673697#msg5673697:
(d) Fourth, I certainly made clear that you would have to demonstrate that you both adhere to and be consistent with whatever 'God' you want to discuss. If you want me to proceed with the Christian concept of 'God', then please show me clearly that you adhere to the Biblical faith of God as well as be ready to be consistent in your faith in Him. If you cannot do so, then it means that you have a different concept of 'God' that you want to present to the atheist - and that is why it is incumbent upon you to explicate that 'God' for the atheist so he/she could be the desired "better worshipper" that you envisage.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

Looking forward to your answer to the question now -

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?

mavenbox:

I smell a derailment.

I dont think so, Viaro comments and concerns are spot on and deal directly with the core issues applicable to this thread.

Deep Sight:

We can swing it on whatever precept of God you are happy to suggest. I will work with any.

I'm not sure you can work with any, which is why it is not incumbent upon me to make any suggestions. I just want you to be very clear on identities, for I've noted earlier that worldviews have very diverse and different denotations of the term 'God' (as in the case of Buddhism). You cannot just throw a general appellation floating around and expect your discussants to run along with it.

In this you might note as a help the broad flavour of the worship of God which I had talked about viz:

Deep Sight:
For me the worship of God simply involves a pursuit of harmony and love and perhaps also a living passion for the wonder of existence.

You first have to identify that 'God' of which you speak, without which all else you might say would tend to be meaningless.

- which precept of worship is couched in broad terms and as such is not contingent on having ANY precept of God at all or even acknowledging that God exists.

Which renders everything meaningless in your discussion in this thread. 'Broad terms' that are not contingent on ANY precept of what you want to speak about just doesn't have a leg to stand on - what that says is that you're neither here nor there, for the only thing that is to be grasped there is a void. I don't know of any worldview that floats on such 'broad terms' as to elude specifics - especially where identities are not defined.

- Thus my willingness to accept any precept of God which you may be willing to advance.

That's a contradition to the previous statement. If you going to speak in broad terms that are not contingent on ANY precept of God, how then are you asking anyone to advance any specific identities of any 'God'? I think it is pertinent upon you to identify what you want to speak about, whether or not you choose to do so in any number of fundamentals.

- However as a further help perhaps I should couch my initial statement this way – A man might be an atheist: but love his fellow man. He is as such in loving his fellow man doing the will of God – even if he is not aware of the fact. He is indeed doing the will of God to a greater degree than a Theist who despises all his fellowmen.

Sorry to observe that is a most pretentious fallacy yet again. An atheist lives his or her life on the predicate of a belief that 'God' (however defined or identified) does not exist - in other words, the word 'God' is consciously ruled out! The theist, on the other hand, lives on the predicate of a belief where the basis of ethics is consciously grounded in 'God' (speficically identified in supernatural terms). Hence, for any indices of the "will of God", you would first have to identify the specific 'God' you're talking about before trying to pirate the term 'God' into the atheistic worldview. Failing to do so just renders your redaction meaningless yet again.

- Hence my question to you inquiring if an acknowledgement that God exists is required to do the will of God.

Dare I say again: what 'God' are you DeepSight talking about? You are yet to identify that 'God' before rushing into other stuff. The term 'God' in Buddhism is radically different from most other concepts of 'God', and you cannot just railroad your discussion on broad terms with no specifics - else everything you advance is meaningless.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

- Hope the foregoing has addressed this.

Not one tiny bit - which is why my most basic question remains.

Looking forward to your answer to the question now -

Does one require an apprehension that God exists -

in order to do the will of God?

Where is that 'God' of which you speak, DeepSight? What 'God' are you on about?

If you're going to focus on the Christian conception of 'God', there is a most specific request I made for you to demonstrate: you would first have to identify that 'God' and then "adhere in all consistency" to the same 'God' before you hope to convey any meaning to your addressees.

Now, if there are no specifics, then -

     (a)  you would not be requesting anyone to suggest any 'God' for you

     (b)  as such, your discussion would have no meaning to others

In any worldview you may chance upon, specifics on identities are central. If you don't think so, please just show me ONE specific worldview or belief system where the term 'God' has no identity whatsoever in order for that worldview to be coherent. Just ONE example would do. Cheers.

Thanks again for your comments Viaro.

Errrrrr. . . how can i put this?

Maybe you should just look at the simple example i gave -

Man X - Believes God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

Man Y - Believes God exists. Is rabidly anti-social. A hired assasin and corrupt politician. Despises charity. Cruel and bitter minded.

Man Z - Does not believe God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

Let me make this clear:

  1. We are speaking about Man Z - the Atheist - as such the question of "which God" does not arise at all because he does not believe in any God whatsoever! Pertaining to him the "God" definition is totally out of the question.

  2. The God - definition of which you speak is thus only relevant to the Theist who believes in God.

  3. Consequently the definition that should apply should be the Theist's definition - namely that the question I asked you works with the Theists Definition of God in mind.

So my question should be interpreted thus -

"Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

And if you were Muslim then I will simply replace the word "God" with the word "Allah" to make it clear that I am referring to God as the Muslim perceives him. Thus I would ask an Abuzola - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of Allah - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?" And I would ask a Deep Sight - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of OOI [ ] - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

So i hope the question is clearer now - namely that the Atheist ab initio has no conception of God: thus the only conception we are working with is that of the Theist - thus we are inquiring if it is possible that an Atheist can unknowingly live his life in a manner that is pleasing to God as conceived by a Theist - such as yourself.

I dont know if I am speaking gibberish, but what i am trying to put across is that a mind that rejects God's existence may still be capable of doing many things that you as a Christian or Abuzola as a Muslim would describe as God's will for mankind.

I hope the question is clearer now?

Let's not derail this please.
Deepsight, very wonderful topic. If there is any religion that deserves my respect and admiration, it is buddhism and i even kinda practised it for a while. I can claim not to be a buddhist but i learnt so so many things from buddhist text and i still read them though.

To me, buddhism is a religion of the individual and his environment and is a more humane religion than christianity and islam combined. While the four noble truths are indeed noble, while peace is so much a virtue, the emphasis on mind development/meditation(which i still manage to squeeze out some 10minutes for daily) and so on. Some things that puzzle me as a life's student about buddhism are:
1. Reincarnation, which to me is not so distant from the heaven and hell concept. I will understand if someone, say a zen buddhist monk now explains to me that the whole reincarnation thing is like the yoruba concept of "eewo"(taboo- not exactly intended to fool but protect you and so on). I am yet to come to grasp of reincarnation.

2. An almost unreasonable respect for animals. For one, i am a vegetarian but for health reasons only. I could sneak a hot dog once a year though but thats how much i'll consume meat. Fish i dont like at all so i stick to my favorites (indomie, beans) and unfortunately, i dont eat fruits. yes! i dont. Now, buddhism does not exactly prohibit meat eating but the buddha said not to eat an animal that was intentionally killed for your meal. So a tsunami victim cow is better to be eaten than one from, say abattoir. I understand but dont fully comprehend. Animals are not to be killed, sure but there is silence when it comes to nuisances like vermin. Some monks even carry brooms while walking so as to avoid stepping on insects(a noble sentiment, quite easier in some mountains in malaysia and co. Try it in oshodi) Some of these issues have proved quite tricky for the dalai lama.

3. Be free to blame me, buddhism forbids alcohol/intoxicants. Am a gulder man  so, d tin no go gree work lyk dat. 
All said and done, buddhism is still a sexy way of life. I like to term it that except religion is no longer defined in association with a greater existence(GOD_{deepsight baba, amnot ready to debate the term GOD O.}  ) which religion does not really subscribe to,

_{mavenbox, long time! how u dey now? mo ti miss e oo}

Over to you deepsight!

Deep Sight:

Thanks again for your comments Viaro.

Much obliged.

Errrrrr. . . how can i put this?

Maybe you should just look at the simple example i gave -

Man X - Believes God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

Man Y - Believes God exists. Is rabidly anti-social. A hired assasin and corrupt politician. Despises charity. Cruel and bitter minded.

Man Z - Does not believe God exists. Loves his fellowman. Actively helps build his community. Does extended charity work.

DeepSight, please tell me as simply as you can: what 'God' are you speaking about?

I think your prevarication on this matter is beginning to show up. Or, I could only excuse this whole issue on one thing: you just do not have any inkling what you're talking about. Between these two, the choice is yours.

Why is it too difficult for you to point to a particular reference on your 'God'? What is wrong with the atheist pointing to your own OOI to make whatever he/she likes of it?

You see, it's easy to pull the rug from under the feet of the same fellows you invite to this thread - I saw it upfront and that was why I let this thread alone initially. I just happen to notice that when specifics are concerned, people who talk the way you do are more than likely to be as evasive as ever. Otherwise, I don't see why this simple issue is forever proving the most difficult point for you - especially in the face of the fact that 'God' in Buddhism does not mean what other worldviews may hold about that term.

This was why I narrowed it down to this simple point:

    If you don't think so, please just show me ONE specific worldview or belief system
    where the term 'God' has no identity whatsoever in order for that worldview to be
    coherent. Just ONE example would do.

Would I have expected you to oblige an answer to that? No. Why so? Is it not obvious you're not making any sense whatsoever thus far?

Let me make this clear:

  1. We are speaking about Man Z - the Atheist - as such the question of "which God" does not arise at all because he does not believe in any God whatsoever! Pertaining to him the "God" definition is totally out of the question.

This is where you display the fact that you absolutely do not have a clue what you're saying. Go and get a real-life experience about this, and then come back and let's see if you can maintain this cheap talk up there.

2. The God - definition of which you speak is thus only relevant to the Theist who believes in God.

Which more than confirms to me that you're excluding yourself from that term: 'theist'. This is not about which 'God' I am speaking about - this thread is yours: you're the one person who started this whole issue in arguing that the atheist is a "better worshipper" of 'God', and that 'God' that the atheist worships is what we're about to discover. Why is that a problem for you?

3. Consequently the definition that should apply should be the Theist's definition - namely that the question I asked you works with the Theists Definition of God in mind.

False - trice remarkably and roguishly FALSE in broad daylight! This thread was not about the theistic concept of 'God' of which you tried to dragoon the atheist into as a "better worshipper".

On this very same issue, I had made the point in another thread that -

      There are atheists to whom the word 'god' is no problem at all, for in their
      own philosophy of ideas they use the word loosely. The example of Einstein
      who appeals to Spinoza's 'god' is a ready reference: it simple comes down
      to god being nature.

For the Theist, God is NOT 'nature' - and since this thread is not about theism, you can't just make a huge switch to turn it around to be a discussion on theism - any theism - for that matter! Nor can you try to quickly pull the rug from under the feet of the atheist when you already are soliciting Buddhism, where Buddhism as a matter of fact does not hold the theistic meaning of 'God'. I think your dribbling round this issue is not quite the thing for you, DeepSight.

Lol, I don't know what is happening, but my previous post is not appearing. Whatz up?

Hi ilosiwaju! Thanks big bro, I have been relatively busier recently  

Deep Sight, do you remember a discussion we once had about the will of the Christian God, and predestination? And how I likened it to a chess game, where the Grandmaster can see many moves ahead? It is very possible for an atheist to be in a position that God intends them to be, to perform whatsoever role; but that's not all that fulfilling the will of God entails.

See the ff verses for more details.

Rev 17:17, Php 2:13, 1 Pet 4:17-19, 1 Pet 2:12-15, Eph 5:11-17

I think Viaro is right in saying that you can't just discuss "God" because that word has many meanings to many people. You need to be more specific.

@viaro: I guess the spambot has you. Dont try to re-post or you may get banned. happened to me before.

mavenbox:

@viaro: I guess the spambot has you. Dont try to re-post or you may get banned. happened to me before.

Goodly advice. I was just wondering.