Buddhists should be on fantasy Island

[heresy]

At the risk of this forum becoming an anti abrahamic forum, I propose that Buddhists, along with all other theists, be placed on Fantasy Island.

The apparent double standard regarding Buddhists opens the AFA Forum to attack from groups who share similar belief structures to Buddhism and are treated in the same way to the Abrahamic religions.

For example, Scientology does not believe in a personal 'god', as in Buddhism, yet is classified as a religion. No doubt Mr Hubbard's Xenu is as ridiculous as the being Buddha, who gave rise to the Religion.

Spiritualism should find no home amongst atheists, and yet it shares beliefs of 'past lives' and 'Karma' with other nonsensical Buddhist beliefs.

Buddhists follow doctrines, aspire to enter heaven "Nirvana", see Buddha is a deity, complete with miracle birth, and often segregate themselves in the most pious of traditions.... comparing clothing.

Suffering, the great bain of Jesus Christ, the man who suffered for the sins all men and women are born with... Such familiar sentiments as shared by Buddhism.

I hereby propose that proponents and followers of Buddhism be moved to fantasy Island, lest these forums become infested with new age ( and old age ) spiritual nonsense.

Humbly,

Mr Heresy.

[davo]

Hitchens in 'God is not great' has a good explanation of Buddhism, and what it leads too. (idolatory, war etc etc) and the differing versions (for instance not all buddhists believe everything you say above)

Believers of all creeds are not moved to Fantasy Island until they start 'doing their do'. If a non-believer doesn't start discussing stuff in a way that warrants it, there is no need.

If you want to be able to enjoy the totally atheist discussion areas on the site that are private join the AFA! w00t! :)

Fantasy Island isn't a prison, it's a place where certain ideas can be discussed where they don't end up taking over every thread as some are want to do, or get in the way of real discussion on stuff. If users cannot contain those discussions to that area, then they are wholesale moved to it so that they will. Sometimes believers are so way out there, they are moved there from the start.

Really it's the AFA's choice, unlike a dogma, each is taken as they come.

That's how I have seen it anyway.

[Loki]

But these aren't the bad buddhists, these only follow the good bits of buddhism. They don't go along with those iffy bits. These are the one true buddhists, how could you persecute them so?

[davo]

@loki lol

Personally I agree, there is a whole lot of proselytizing going on in places, I haven't bothered to get in the discussion myself, the more active mods have been onto it for a while tho.

[atheist_angel]

I do not think ALL BUDDHISTS should be moved to the Island. There are forms of Buddhism that are secular humanistic and supernatural-free. (or even quite lapsed.) This is something looked at on a case by case basis for woo content.

[Darwinsbulldog]

It depends if the Buddhists in question confine themselves to merely philosophical/enlightenment questions or whether they invoke supernaturalism in some way, like re-incarnation or disembodied souls. In other matters, many of them are atheist in regard to cods.

So wouldn't it depend on the content of the specific post?

[heresy]

Then I could say i'm a Christian enlightenment atheist.
And I should be allowed to be on the forums freely, because I'm conveniently described.

I don't believe in a personal god, don't believe in miracles, just impose Jesus' teachings of good and moral value on my life and everyone i speak to around me...

I am, in effect a Moral enlightened Christian who only retains the name 'christian' because it identifies Jesus, in opposition to other religions who deny Jesus' existence and works.. I use Jesus' moral teachings in a non supernatural way...

Someone will surely come back at me and say.... If all of this is true, then I am not a Christian....

Same goes for Buddhists. If you don't believe a rich prince popped out the side of his mothers body while she was standing in a garden and walked in all four directions, then why denegrate yourself by calling yourself a Buddhist?

atheist angel, i refer you to Loki's joke above your post..

There is no need to do a case by case look at Chrstians, muslims, or Jews... They label themselves and religion is their label. Buddhism is the same. Its a religion...

Don't want to be called religious? Fine, don't label yourself with the brand of a religion and nobody can be mistaken!

[atheist_angel]

Then I could say i'm a Christian enlightenment atheist.
And I should be allowed to be on the forums freely, because I'm conveniently described.

I don't believe in a personal god, don't believe in miracles, just impose Jesus' teachings of good and moral value on my life and everyone i speak to around me...

I am, in effect a Moral enlightened Christian who only retains the name 'christian' because it identifies Jesus, in opposition to other religions who deny Jesus' existence and works.. I use Jesus' moral teachings in a non supernatural way...
We actually get these on the forums too, but they call themselves "rationalists" or something like that.

I don't mind, as long as there is no proselytizing or Woo. Proselytizing and woo goes 'you know where'.

[davo]

Then I could say i'm a Christian enlightenment atheist.
And I should be allowed to be on the forums freely, because I'm conveniently described.

I thought I pointed out that Fantasy Island is not a prison, we are not building an us and them. There is no restriction that believers even have to stay there. it is up to the mods as reps for the AFA to be able to delegate them there if disruptive, or want to talk about woo and not open to changing their perspective.

It is a place that certain types of discussion can be relegated, and theists CAN be relegated too if they cannot discuss within what the mods deem to be not destructive to wider discourse. it's not a rule. In a last course of action for faithheads that are just trolling there is banning, but we offer limbo :)

Personally I don't mind, I like difference of opinion, even strong difference. I'm willing to change my mind given sufficient evidence for a claim. Bring it on.

if you want a place that is fully atheist only, there is the private forums that members of the AFA have access too but not others :)

[atheist_angel]

I think Heresy needs to take a walk through the sekrit lounge! ;)

[davo]

from Fantasy Island FAQ ..

We try to maintain a fair exchange of ideas here. AFA is an atheist forum, primarily for atheists (people who do not believe in a god or gods).

Some people take advantage of our hospitality, and use our forum as a pulpit (or worse, as a toxic waste dump for prejudice, hatred or questionable business activities). Still, we try...

The members have an expectation that atheist/atheist matters can be carried on without interjection or interruption from believers. For matters involving dialogue with believers, Fantasy Island evolved.

Fantasy Island is also the place where extraordinary and unfounded claims of the supernatural and fringe science may go, unless sufficient reputable evidence can be supplied.

[davo]

I think Heresy needs to take a walk through the sekrit lounge! ;)

Indeed :)

thooper thekwit.

[davo]

Then I could say i'm a Christian enlightenment atheist.
And I should be allowed to be on the forums freely, because I'm conveniently described.

maybe they would look like this fellow? :)

http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c148211/atheistsForJesus.jpg

there are atheists for jesus, and christian atheists, search for them. Interesting lot, would make for some pretty wild discussions eh :)

[two dogs]

...
if you want a place that is fully atheist only, there is the private forums that members of the AFA have access too but not others :)
At the exorbitant fee of $105 for a five year membership! ;)

[TÐöer]

@heresy, I understand where you are coming from. But like what Davo said, it's what these people say that warrants going to fantasy island, and not for agreeing with a few things that religions tell them, (for example, do not kill others, do not eye your neighbour's wife, and what nots). We had a few Christians who was not marooned on the island for quite some time until eventually they showed their true intention. Digitalos was one, if I'm not mistaken.

Actually, I had posted some arguements against Buddhism its in the forum somewhere. And would find it interesting to debate against the religion. For example, recently I found out that Fish do not feel pain. So does that mean that killing them is "ok".

If reincarnation was true, then what happens when a person is cryogenically frozen? Does that mean that A. He cannot reborn (spirit in stasis). B. His body can never be revived (lack of a spirit) C. A different spirit gets replaced. D. The guy in his new body dies and returns to his old body when it is revived.

Seem improbable right?

I do not believe everything buddhism teaches, and question it everyday. But none the less there's nothing wrong with quoting from buddhism, if it seems applicable. I mean, we are not allergic to religion are we?

I will not use a no true scottsman argument, but I do not think, that one should be shunned, just because they are buddhists.

Assuming, you are a Christian, and is earnestly, wondering what is atheism about. Being fair in your arguments, coming with honest questions rather than bible answers; I do not feel that we should put you on the island.

[davo]

really fantasy island was for disruptive theists, than ended up posting in every thread making everything one massive debate, rather than discussion.

[TÐöer]

All in not as many words :P

[davo]

It's an understandable reaction tho .. the term Fantasy and Theist kinda go hand in hand :)

[Loki]

I don't think the buddhist thread needs to be restricted. It's on FI, where it should be and the protagonists aren't pushing it into other threads, so where's the problem. Besides, without buddhism, we would not have Monkey.

194

[Fearless]

Besides, without buddhism, we would not have Monkey.

I'll pay that... I have been a fan since childhood... well up until the change of Pigsy lol

Great fantasy action adventure.

Edit: oops I better add something... as long as no one is proselytizing and thread hopping, spreading nonsense and can be respectful of the theme of these forums and it's guidelines then it is ok in my books.

But, as was mentioned earlier... if you start making claims like "The Dalai Lama is real" without evidence to back the claim then you are sorta heading for the ferry.

[two dogs]

I'll pay that... I have been a fan since childhood... well up until the change of Pigsy lol

Great fantasy action adventure.


I must admit that I "had the hots" the for woman playing the part of Tripitaka.

[heresy]

preface: have read and understood points regarding the nature of FI and its use in keeping trolling theists

I mean, we are not allergic to religion are we?



I am now officially allergic to religion

[Acepanno]

But they are upsetting the Christians!!

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/woman-wants-buddha-statues-banned-from-hope-valley-nursing-home/story-e6frfku0-1225850840438

"It's very stressful for the older people to see this sort of thing.

"We are committed Christians and we don't want Buddhist statues in our faces all the time."

[Fearless]

But they are upsetting the Christians!!

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/woman-wants-buddha-statues-banned-from-hope-valley-nursing-home/story-e6frfku0-1225850840438

"It's very stressful for the older people to see this sort of thing.

"We are committed Christians and we don't want Buddhist statues in our faces all the time."

Ha, what a laugh!

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6774/potcallskettleblack.jpg

[Vangelis]

Ah only now I find this thread. I'm a bit slow these days... must be old age. Anyway, I'd just like to thank the mods for their sensible stance on this issue. I think the most important factor here is that atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of god(s). It is not anti-religious per se.

[Fearless]

Ah only now I find this thread. I'm a bit slow these days... must be old age. Anyway, I'd just like to thank the mods for their sensible stance on this issue. I think the most important factor here is that atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of god(s). It is not anti-religious per se.

I am sure I am not alone with this, but I even have trouble with the word disbelief as it tends to imply that there is something there but we don't believe in it. Or we refuse to.

incredulity: doubt about the truth of something

It seems petty but I just cannot settle with using the words disbelief or believe in negative context when discussing my stance on the concept of god or any other supernatural entities.

More recently someone made the point that the word believe (or belief) has several definitions. Of course with my memory I have forgotten who said it, but using the word generally is ok but it all comes down to context.

Two variations:
If you believe in fairies, ghosts, or miracles, you are sure that they exist or happen. If you believe in a god, you are sure of the existence of that god.
If you believe in a way of life or an idea, you are in favour of it because you think it is good or right.

Denial and disbelief, although they state the point are negative points, Atheism is too often married with negativity.

So I prefer to stick with the AFA's more neutral definition:
ATHEISM: is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

[Vangelis]

I am sure I am not alone with this, but I even have trouble with the word disbelief as it tends to imply that there is something there but we don't believe in it. Or we refuse to.


Ok, I agree with this as I have stated before being a strong atheist.


So I prefer to stick with the AFA's more neutral definition:

So how do consider someone that categorically denies the existence of god(s)? I'm just trying to come to terms with the concepts myself. Whilst I think that the AFA's definition is neutral and very rational, I think that many atheists will categorically deny the existence of god(s). What are your thoughts on that stance?

[Fearless]

This is something I have posted elsewhere which should hopefully answer that from my perspective (slightly modified)

I refer back to the Dawkin's scale (stolen from one of Protium's old posts) to make this thread but noticed something Protium actually comments on (sorry using you as an example here) and has caused me even more to question my feelings on the matter.


Richard Dawkins Belief Scale

Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

Personally I am a 6. (If allowed I'd say 6.9)
I doubt many atheists would claim 7 "There is no god!".

I am unable to accept gods' existence. I have been indirectly accused of being dogmatic, not unlike like a religious person with my atitude. I have never had reason to question probability (for the positive) of gods existence, I fortunately have never needed to but I find this notion of a just in case clause personally challenging.

I don't say 'I know' there is no god. I just have no reason to accept the possibility in the slightest sense. I don't walk around saying "You're wrong, you're wrong and I'm right", in fact I am pretty tolerant generally of others beliefs unless it is shoved under my nose of course.

I think to consider me dogmatic is somewhat unfair in itself and I am not sure how to feel about it to be honest.

Saying all this I do find some comfort in seeing a poll result on the topic
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7359/afascalepoll.jpg

[Fearless]

p.s. I should have mentioned I don't speak on behalf of all Atheists (no one really can) and may not represent the majority when answering your question.

I am also far from being the best person to speak to on the subject he he. I am but a simple man. ;)

The poll, (which many people don't like referring to) is still a fair representation of the general trend, well at least here at that time.

[Vangelis]

Right, so now I'm with you. If I state that I know there is no god with the same conviction that I know there is no tooth fairy then I would be a strong atheist. I was just checking that is an acceptable atheist stand because it is stronger than the AFA statement on atheism. With I must say is a more rational and defensible statement. No, actually, I take that back. There is no tooth fairy and I think that is a rational and defensible statement.

[Fearless]

But the tooth fairy is mentioned in many books, why would you doubt it? many millions of children around the world will attest to existence!