Postmodern Beatnik wrote:
The fundamental premise of Buddhism is anatta, which is a denial of the Hindu doctrine of atman -- i.e., the immortal soul. Technically speaking, Buddhists do not typically believe in reincarnation as Westerners understand it. This is a misconception stemming from the fact that "reincarnation" is the closest concept we have to the Buddhist notion of "rebirth."

Postmodern Beatnik wrote:
I disagree that atheism encompasses more than not believing in God (or, more specifically, believing in the non-existence of God -- one can not believe in God and not be an atheist by virtue of suspending judgment and being an agnostic). It just happens to be the case that atheism is typically tied to naturalism is Western philosophy, and so the former tends to carry connotations of the latter.

Postmodern Beatnik wrote:
It seems to me that what is unfair to the rich diversity among atheists is to suggest that there is more to it than a (non-agnostic) rejection of theism. To make all atheists naturalists or otherwise universal participants in a particular philosophical movement is to homogenize them. It is by noting the many different ways one may be an atheist -- and by noting that one can be a religious atheist or an irreligious atheist -- that we acknowledge the diversity within atheism.

Postmodern Beatnik wrote:
To make all atheists naturalists or otherwise universal participants in a particular philosophical movement is to homogenize them.

sheps wrote:
But the methods which atheists use to justify their claims always fall under naturalism, materialism, etc.

However, the 'church' of atheism, so to speak, has always encompassed FAR more than this[. . .].

So, it should really be 'Christianity is wrong' not 'religion is wrong.'

mtboger wrote:
My point is, why does Richard Dawkins feel the need to persuade and argue his point, if no matter what, all people end up as nonexistent.

Martin wrote:
A human life has Purpose Meaning if and only if (1) it has a purpose or purposes, (2) this purpose or these purposes have significance, (3) this purpose or these purposes can provide psychological satisfaction, (4) it is possible to fulfill this purpose or these purposes, and (5) this purpose or these purposes are either not arbitrary or have a plausible rationale. (Atheism, Morality, and Meaning, 187)

sheps wrote:


Buddhists believe in reincarnation and Nirvana, etc. That, to an atheist who argues like Dawkins does, should be as idealistic as believing in God and it seems like a populist copout by him when he says that he 'likes the ideas of Buddhism' (Independant article, recently). Just my quibble with him; I'm not going to allow him to put Buddhism on his side, as Buddhism entails the idea of an immortal soul which is something he clearly does not believe in.

I agree with you on the point that you CAN be a 'Buddhist atheist,' but being an atheist in Western philosophy encompasses many more things than 'not believing in a God.' To accuse theists of being wrong about this is unfair both to them and to the rich diversity within atheism; atheism has become far more than just a 'rejection of theism.' It is a movement which has developed since the Enlightenment and has succeeded in doing far more than just putting up a case against the existence of God. You do the acheivements of atheism as a philosophy injustice to my mind, Wosret. There, I said it.