There are non theist religions in the world. Aren’t they correct?
You’ll need to be more specific. Which religion? What do you mean by correct?
Like Buddhism. They don’t believe a creator of a universe.
In what way is buddhism “right”?
@Udenidhammikag_1948, there are many, many Buddhism beliefs. Again, you need to be specific. Which belief? What do you mean by “correct”? Are you asking if others agree with a particular belief or are you asking if a particular belief can be demonstrated to be true?
Buddhism has a less place for Gods. Has any evidence to disprove it’s doctrines?
For instance, reincarnation is a belief in Buddhism. However, I do not believe in it. There is exactly zero testable, repeatable, measurable evidence for it.
1 Like
“Less place for gods” is not the same as “does not believe in gods”.
Buddhists make the claims or assertions about whatever buddhists believe in. Thus, it is their job to prove their claims. It’s not my (or our) job to disprove their beliefs.
1 Like
Then, what is life and consciousness of a living being? How energy conservation low apply?
There are only two possibilities. Either living organisms die like plants or have a reincarnation. Then, the question is, if there is no reincarnation, what’s the purpose of not believing a religion?
The real question is, why would you want to practice a religion at all?
Why are you seeking these things out? What’s missing from your life that has you looking to religion?
That is incorrect.
It’s likely different for each person. For me, the purpose of not believing in something that cannot be demonstrated as true allows me not to be a fool.
1 Like
If someone goes to heaven or near to God or get a new life , according to religions, all are reincarnations. Even, present life of all people is also can be said as a reincarnation, though there are many definitions by religions. Otherwise , life is just a product of bio-chemical reaction.
There are advantages and disadvantages of religions. Do you believe that becoming an atheist will fulfill the people’s moral ethics?
You are asking a new question now, without exploring the responses to the previous questions. Slow down.
Yes, I think that’s the case albeit an over simplification. The evidences point in that direction. Interestingly, some life developed the ability to reason, to live in cooperative communities, to be creative, etc.
Yet another question…
I didn’t become an atheist. I’ve always identified as such.
As for morals, each person has their own whether they adhere to a religion or not.
3 Likes
I’ve always been an Atheist who grew up with a religious family. You don’t learn morals from Atheism or a religion. Morals isn’t exclusive to either. Most kids learn morals from their parents and peers, or lack thereof.
2 Likes
Not so fast. You’re about to gish-gallop away here, and that is generally frowned upon. So let’s take one step at a time. You are asserting that there is such a phenomenon as reincarnation. For it to make any sense at all to discuss this, we need to make certain that we know what you mean by reincarnation and demonstrate that it is a fact. Thus, you need to
- define what you mean by reincarnation
- explain how you can figure out that an organism has indeed reincarnated
- you need a mechanism through which reincarnation can happen
- show that reincarnation according to 1, 2, and 3 has actually happened and/or is happening
Without showing the above, we’re discussing shit along the lines of how many angels can dance on a pinhead, without ever knowing whether angels exists, whether they can dance (and which dance?), and whether the pin has structural integrity enough to hold all those angels.
So, please start by answering to items 1 though 4 above.
2 Likes
About what? You will need to be way more specific.
1 Like
That claim seems unfalsifiable, so neither it nor a contrary claim can be demonstrated. I don’t need to be able to disprove something in order to disbelieve it, all that requires is for it to fail to meet its burden of proof. Disbelieving the universe was created, is not the same as making a claim it was not.
That’s not entirely true, as some Buddhists believe Buddha was a deity, but either way the doctrinal teachings would have to be objectively evidenced for me to believe them. So what are you saying is true about Buddhist doctrine, and why? I don’t believe in karma or reincarnation for a start, and for the same reason I don’t believe any deities exist.
You can’t rationally evidence a claim, by asking someone for an alternative explanation, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
No idea what that means sorry?
False dichotomy fallacy, and it is an objective fact that living organisms die, also plants are living organisms, the objective evidence for both is overwhelming. Fi you think plants die differently to other living organisms, then please demonstrate why you think this.
That is nonsensical, belief in anything is based on the evidence allaying my doubts sufficiently to reach my threshold for credulity. What objective evidence (if any) can you demonstrate for reincarnation? I have seen none thus far.
If Kryptonite is placed close to Superman it weakens his powers. How is this different in any objective or epistemological way to your assertion?
You can say the moon is made of soft cheese, this doesn’t make it true, and I could care less what religions claim, I am only interested in whether those claims can be supported by sufficient objective evidence.
There is no “otherwise”, it is an objective fact that life involves biochemical reactions. Reincarnation is not supported by any objective evidence I am aware of.
This doesn’t make them true in any objective sense.
All the evidence suggests that atheists are at least as moral as theists when measured by an objective metric. However it is irrelevant to whether god claims are objectively true. If every theist turned into a slavering raping mass murderer on losing their belief, it would tell us nothing about the truth of that belief.
FWIW I don’t find metaethical objectivism at all compelling, compared to moral relativism or subjectivism, or even metaethical emotivism, but I am willing to listen to your arguments.
1 Like
Depends on the sect. I am given to understand that Buddhism does not teach any sort of personal god and most Buddhist sects do not flog the idea, but that like all religions, Buddhism tends to adapt to the host culture, and has influences from origins in a Hindu culture, which is polytheistic.
Buddhist texts don’t have a deity and the Buddha himself denied that he was divine and even said you shouldn’t believe things he says, but check them out for yourself. Although much of what he claims cannot be “checked out for oneself” as it’s not verifiable and/or is highly subjective.
The religion and traditions that evolved from the Buddha’s teachings does have a cosmology, including concepts similar to heaven and hell, and various supernatural beings (hungry ghosts, ascended masters or “bodhisattvas”, and so forth) plus the concept of rebirth (not quite the same as reincarnation).
The supernatural is inherently problematic with or without a god because it is definitionally unverifiable and unobservable – and as such, cannot be evidenced in any way.