File: 81PjiAjnCkL.jpg (358 KB, 1548x2327)

358 KB JPG

>>41406905
I blame Alan Watts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AntIFtEifRk

>>41406905
Yeah, I don't get why they do that. The metaphysics and soteriology is different, but Buddhists do admit the existence of devas even if they don't necessarily pray to them. There's the viewpoint that even these deities are subject to karma. So it's a mixbag that's not easily compared to Judeo-Christian praxis.

>>41406905
Because they are able to read the teachings separate from the local cultures and traditions.

>>41406905
The Buddha essentially told his contemporaries that their gods were worthless and their priests were frauds. He didn't just dismiss divine beings—he stripped them of all power and dignity, reducing mighty deities to pathetic creatures as trapped and clueless as everyone else. While people were prostrating themselves before altars and enriching temple priests, the Buddha declared the entire enterprise a cosmic joke. Gods can't save you, can't enlighten you, and can't even save themselves from the same cycle of death and rebirth that torments insects.

His "middle way" was actually a merciless demolition of divine authority. The Buddha looked at thousands of years of god-worship, ritual sacrifice, and priestly mediation and declared it all elaborate nonsense—a distraction from the fact that you're completely alone in your suffering and only your own discipline can free you. He didn't need to call himself an atheist; he just made gods so irrelevant and impotent that believing in them became an act of self-deception. The Buddha's enlightenment was ultimately the realization that the universe operates without divine care or intervention, leaving humans to confront the brutal mechanics of existence without cosmic comfort or supernatural rescue.

>>41406955
Buddhism rejects dogma because it understands that all fixed beliefs are just attachments in disguise. Every ideology, every rigid system of thought is just another trap—another illusion mistaken for truth. Unlike religions that demand blind faith in doctrine, Buddhism is a method, a way of seeing, not a set of commandments to obey. Even its core teachings, from the Four Noble Truths to the Eightfold Path, are not meant to be worshipped but used as tools, and then discarded once their purpose is fulfilled. The moment someone clings to Buddhism as an identity, as a set of absolute truths, they have already missed the point. That’s why it doesn’t try to impose a single answer or force a universal meaning onto existence—it only points the way and leaves the journey to the one walking it.

This anti-dogmatic nature extends even to nirvana itself. Unlike heaven or salvation, nirvana isn’t something to be described, grasped, or defined—it is beyond language, beyond concepts, beyond the limits of the mind trying to contain it. The moment someone tries to put it into words, they have already reduced it to something it is not. This is why Buddhist texts constantly negate—nirvana is not this, not that, not a place, not an experience, not a void, not existence. Because to define it would be to turn it into another illusion, another attachment. It is not something to be believed in, but something to be realized, something that can only be known by direct experience. Unlike other spiritual traditions that trap people in words and dogma, Buddhism refuses to let even its highest truth become a cage.

>>41406960
Have you realized nirvana?

>>41406905
They believe in gods but also say that you can completely ignore them because they’re faggots. It’s closer to Gnosticism than atheism.

>>41406905
Cause white bitches like to larp as buddhists, which means they "Meditate", get high and try and pretend that makes them spiritual. They just took the name to sound better than the other hippie whores in the commune, without practicing or even reading up on buddhism

>>41406905
because they have never read the original pali texts, nor have 90% of buddhists.

>>41406960
>Because to define it would be to turn it into another illusion, another attachment. It is not something to be believed in, but something to be realized, something that can only be known by direct experience.
turning inward is nirvana, this is the one and only explanation, anyone who is self-realized knows this.

>>41407801
Anyone got the meme you know the one I’m taking about. Hippy chick says she is a Buddhist then the quotes about women from the Buddha.

File: buddhist.jpg (119 KB, 617x680)

119 KB JPG

>>41407958
>Anyone got the meme
this one?

>>41406905
Those people don't quite get all of it.
If divinity is an aspiration, their logical conclusion is that it's not an omnipotent, omnivalent entity.
That's where they then stop and say they figured it out.
The fact that they then dismiss everyone who's reached that aspiration is carelessly neglected.
God is a verb and all that. Buddhists believe in gods, in the sense that entities do good and can achieve good and still exist once they do- and have done their goodness.

>>41406947
>Buddha told people they're not gonna get saved by higher power mommy and that their priests lie for money
>taught that you have to save yourself if you wanna have salvation at all
>showed how you too can be gods like an adult, while emphasising that it won't make you special, just grown up
Green text is what I read.
Did I get it accurately?

File: Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad.png (1.54 MB, 2113x1885)

1.54 MB PNG

>>41406905
>Why do progressive Westerners try to convince everyone that Buddhists are atheists
Buddhism is atheism. It was called nirvishesha shunyavada in olden time by the followers of veda. There were four sects, vaibhashika, lokayatika, the other two. Dont you know any history? Dont you know of Adi Shankaracarya? Buddhism was defeated already 2500 years ago but people keep pretending otherwise

>>41408271
No, Buddhism isn't atheist.
It's apatronic. It doesn't patronise you and doesn't matronise you.
There's no big mommy who's coming to save anyone. That's what it fought more than anything, the childish "pls save me" mentality which permeates through every single religion and is at the root of the zionist endtimes prophecy and plan.
All Abrahamic religions except Catholicism venerate saviours as if they haven't already come. The schism between Cathies and Protties is precisely over the matter of whether the saviour already came and the prophecies are all fulfilled, or hasn't come yet or is yet to come a second time to fulfill everything. Because Cathies live as it is already done, and Protties think the Old Testament hasn't happened yet.
And Jews, goes without saying, reject the notion that the saviour/moshiach already fulfilled all the promises.

What Buddhism argued is that there are no promises to fulfill, no prophecies to make happen in the first place.
That there won't be a saviour, because only you can save yourself.
The Saviour Complex may be a massive civilisation-shattering problem for which Buddhism has solutions, that doesn't mean however that Buddhism denounces divine virtue incarnate, and THAT is where westerners make a criminal miscalculation.
Buddhism doesn't teach that there are no gods.
Western thinkers are so conditioned to think of goodness as a singular entity, that they misinterpret that as "there's no goodness, just be apathic and stop caring"- nihilism.

In other words, don't wait for god to save you.
Be the fucking god yourself. It's what Buddha did and look at him, the based lad.

The buddhist sects that wanted to gain a foothold in the west specifically sold it to them that way. It's been specifically tailored for the salary class culture to the point of birthing corporate "mindfulness"

File: 1596257853787.jpg (5 KB, 162x191)

5 KB JPG

>>41408374
You seriously wrote all that fluff just to confirm buddhist is garbage for narcicissts? Fuck off with your self aggrandizement bullshit. Real religion is not for you
Maybe try with judaism or any of the other satanic sects

Maybe because of the meanings they have about God, which comes from their exposure to the Abrahamic concept of God, Maybe because a large percentage of them are New Age spiritualists who haven't really spent much time reading Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist texts and just eat up the ideas around these philosophies that feed their ego. Maybe because a lot of them are from the west coast which has corrupted eastern spiritual teachings to be aligned with Marxism.

Maybe all of the above...

>>41406905
The worst part about religion is to submit yourself to the judgement of scriptures, clergymen and others that share your faith.
Taking some random exotic religion means you bypass that. That you can say whatever you want and no one is going is going tocall you a lying bitch. Which is really convenient, especially when it's what you truly are.
Yet in reality, practicing spirituality in a community is the actual easy mode. The ones that manage to practice spirituality on their own are saints, hermits, mystics: that's nightmare mode.

>>41408374
>don't wait for god to save you.
Exactly. Instead pray to amitaba to reincarnate you in his pure land.

>>41406905
because westerners dont engage with other cultures on their own terms, they have to define everything relative to the western perspective
so when a western atheist reads "eastern" stuff its
>wow its just a metaphor bro
when western christians read "eastern" stuff its
>wow its like christ consciousness bro
when new age people read "eastern" stuff its
>wow its returning to the source bro
and so on and so forth

>>41410594
You actually believe that's a uniquely western habit?

>>41406905
Heresy might as well be atheism

>>41410765
where did i say it was uniquely western?

>>41410839
When you specifically singled it out as if it was a unique cultural quirk and not a universal reality you slimey fuck

>>41407865
you've realized nirvana?

>>41406905
Idk if it's "progressive Westerners" but westerners in general. My guess would be because they're generally stupid people that come from stupid placed that were only designed to make money.
The capitalism that they're at fault for creating is what allowed a bunch of other, slightly smarter and more articulate idiots to have careers where they sell books and do speeches about how God, or any other religion isn't a good thing.
So currently, where the majority of the wester world are secular and annoying godless idiots, they're trying to fix surface level problems with stupid shit like politics even though most don't even believe in politics.
Any sort of spirituality that they've managed to hijack from the east has been mostly adopted by their stupid women and mangled to the point of no recognition.
If we're talking about americans specifically, they're the dumbest nation and group of people to ever exist, considering their circumstances and opportunities.
Complete ignorant, demon worshipping, uneducated fat fuckheads that can't even read or write "their own" language properly.

>>41410948
>thread is about westerners
>post about westerners
>"it's not just westerners!"
>weird personal attacks
what is your malfunction

>>41409463
oh no guys look what you did. you woke up sponchbob!!
>anything i don't understand i will regard as narcissism and that way i always "win"
go back to sleep, bubba

>>41410963
if you read how the Scythian sage Gotama supposedly described what would happen, then yes.

>>41411579
sigh

>>41406905
My argument for is just that in the Buddhism I'm familiar with the devas are subordinate to the cosmology and metaphysics. They're not immortal, they don't create the world, they're not omniscient or omnipotent, and they're not morally perfect or the source of morality. They're just above humans in terms of power, intelligence, enjoyment, etc. To me that makes them more like aliens (or maybe ghosts) than gods, and I don't think you'd call a person who only believes in aliens or ghosts a type of theist. And (at least Pali Canon) Buddhism doesn't seem to just be agnostic on whether their could be a being who is immortal, etc. it seems to be actively opposed to the notion. E.g. https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/62_kinds_of_wrong_view
>62 Kinds of Wrong View
>5. The one who recalls a past existence in a heavenly plane where he was subject to a more powerful deva and thus, thinks in this life that the more powerful deva is an eternal, all- powerful God. Such a person proclaims that deva to be the one-all-powerful God, creating or following a mono-theist religion, which is essentially wrong view.

Part of why I want to actively recognize at least some form Buddhism as atheist is that I want it to be more widely acknowledged that a person can firmly not believe in a typical western monotheistic God or similarly functioning collection of gods while still holding a number of other spiritual beliefs, so that theists can't claim ownership of all spirituality as they have for a while in the western dynamic, where it's mainly Christians vs the reductionist physicalist hyperskeptic atheists. I think standard theism is actively harmful and philosophically unsound, but at the same time I think the hyperskeptics leave a gaping hole in the human experience that is uncomfortable for many people to hold for long (and I think it's at least slightly wrong as well). So more options need to be publicized.

>>41411817
I don't know about aliens, but pretas (ghosts) are a class of beings in Buddhism that are distinct from devas.

>>41411817
Aren't there multiple streams that believe in an eternal buddha?

>>41411962
I think some Mahayana branches probably have something like that, but I'm not that familiar with them and to the extent that I am familiar with them I'm not confident I really understand them. That's why I try to be careful to say
>the Buddhism I'm familiar with
>at least Pali Canon
>at least some form of Buddhism

>>41411993 (cont.)
Probably the most intellectually honest way to advertise an atheistic spirituality would just be to put out a billion philosophical arguments for each specific view I prefer, and probably the most effective way would be to somehow found a new actually successful world religion, but since I'm not really in a position to do the first and I'm not quite enlightened or supernaturally capable enough to do the second, just pointing at a type of Buddhism and going "Look, we can have something vaguely like that!" is a really tempting next best option.

>>41411993
That stems from the Lotus Sutra right?

>>41412067
The wikipedia page for Eternal Buddha does refer to the Lotus Sutra and the Lotus Sutra is a Mahayana sutra.

>>41411993
Yeah I'm not trying to gotcha, I just think lots of westerners assume there's "true" buddhism and not dozens of them.
I don't actually know how mainstream it is but I'm pretty sure there are mahayana interpretations of at least some boddhisatvas being instantiations of a transcendent and eternal being.

File: Insight.jpg (122 KB, 863x500)

122 KB JPG

>>41408374
>apatronic
Nice new word you created there.

Westerners misunderstand buddhism thread number one billion

>>41406905
Because in Buddhism "god" just means really powerful. Its like saying you believe in God and for proof you point to King Charles.
You don't believe in God. You believe in superhero aliens.
Belief in God entails belief in a Supreme Person that is the origin of all existence, and has no origin of Their own.

I don't think that mainstream forms of Buddhism are at all like the original Buddhism, anymore than modern forms of Christianity are like first century Christianity. Buddhism is probably even further removed than Christianity is from its root.
I don't think that western libtard Buddhism is original Buddhism either. The other anons here have it right. The oldest writings are stone cold. Siddhartha was deeply unsatisfied with religious practices of his day and he sought something different. He didn't outright deny supernatural phenomena, but his philosophy isn't compatible with how normal people see the world, in the west and in the east.

>>41411611
so. you never read the pali texts? besides they are moot in all their simplicity, world is built for enlightenment, most people act as if they were subconsciously enlightened, perhaps it is the consequence and continuum of precise information and trust, it doesn't get easier than present time

>>41413550
>his philosophy isn't compatible with how normal people see the world, in the west and in the east.
his philosophy is: unfuck your brain until you get it and when you get it you can do as you wish

>>41406905
nah Buddha was an atheist .Yeah he said there were deities (meaning we're not top of the chain in terms of evolutionary intelligence, consciousness, awareness) but also that they were more fucked up than we are. The point is there's no Brahman or Ahura Mazda at the top. There's nothing at the top.

>>41413634
the point is, even if there was they would pertain to impermanence, which is quite against the grain of all religions as "perfect world" doesn't click with impermanence

>>41413587
im sighing because im tired of larpers
have a good day

>>41413676
it is not particularly hard to self-realize, it is matter of circumstance first and foremost. for me it took 8 years, to remain self-realized is the real ordeal, as you would have to act accordingly to this realization lest you eventually forget.

Nobody actually reads anything because they are pressed for time. Even you fucking neet loser autists on /x/ are barely more well read on the topic and you have all the time in the world. So it's also a function of attention span and likely literacy. Anyways go suck a dick and die. Shit board. Shit thread.

>>41406905
Atheists are people who have been ruined by Earthly authority, and thus perceive their hatred must be towards the spiritual authorities.
Let them be angry and make their heresey's in peace anon. If it isn't real they have nothing to worry about as you. If it is real...then known you kept your tone leashed and tolerable compared to them.

>>41413642
>even if there was they would pertain to impermanence
No.
That is the contention that makes Buddhism atheistic.
God means there is a Supreme Being that is not subject to temporality.
Saying "even if God, there is no God" is why it is a lie to pretend that Buddhism is not atheistic.

You can say it's wrong to believe there is someone at the top, but that is simply a claim of belief.
A theist could just as easily (and do) say "sure, there's Nirvana, but above Nirvana is God."

>>41408523
I mean, it works. Using breathing exercises and meditation is much less harmful than old fashioned drugs and alcohol for reducing corporate stress.

>>41406905
It is probably part of the "de-eschatologising" that occurred through the enlightenment and post-WW2 developments. Religion became tied to morals and ethics rather than supernatural events. Buddhism entered the Western world in this milieu and was re-interpreted to fit it.

Religious Studies and Theology courses take this attitude.

>>41406947
Everyone can tell this is GPTslop retard. Just stop

>>41409463
>Real religion

Lol, go ahead tell me what the real one is.

File: 6578775786.jpg (19 KB, 267x202)

19 KB JPG

>>41406905
"Secular buddhism" is pushed since the 80s.
It's a strategy of the demons to subvert buddhism.

>>41406905
It's mostly spread by Western "spiritual" type people who see "religion" as a bad word.
It's incredibly disingenuous and proves how little these people actually care about their beliefs.
It's all an act with "spiritual" people.

>>41406905
Noble Savage.
They think that atheism is the pinnacle of humanity and that eventually everyone will become atheist. That atheism will make humanity better.
They see Buddhists who claim to be something they don't understand about religion, it's not as bad as the religions they hate but it's not as good. So they come to the conclusion that it's simply close to atheism. You are enlightened because you are similar to them. Except you're not they just lie about it because their atheism relies on this good vs bad notion.

>>41406905
They thought the gods were just what they saw during meditation and thus manoeuvrable, like physics. It’s apparently not true.

>>41413972
>That is the contention that makes Buddhism atheistic.
>God means there is a Supreme Being that is not subject to temporality.
then you have completely misunderstood pali texts, perhaps you never read them. buddhism isn't about whether something is or isn't, it is about understanding the sense of separation is self-scandalizing continuum, there is no vacuum

File: IMG_20210406_215106_916.jpg (108 KB, 476x516)

108 KB JPG

>>41414378
Unalloyed devotion to God

>>41415247
>then you have completely misunderstood pali texts
Do they accept a Supreme Person that is the ultimate uncaused cause, and the eternal source of all?
If not, it is atheistic.

>>41415596
you don't seem to understand what atheism stands for - either there is a god or there isn't. buddhism doesn't have a position in this or care about gods.

>>41408374
And yet you see people use clay figures of Buddha as charms to bring good luck and in the lore Buddha talks to gods or demons

>>41415806
>what atheism stands for
Atheism is not a positive claim nor a creed nor an organization. "I dont accept a Supreme Person" doesnt stand for anything other than that refused acceptance.
>buddhism doesn't have a position in this
But it does, because Buddhism says there is nothing permanent, and there is no ultimate source of all.
Because Buddhism is atheistic.
Or prove me wrong. Show me where Buddhism accepts any tenet of theism.
Show me Buddhism saying there is a Supreme Person.
Show me Buddhism saying there is an eternal source of all existence.

>>41415596
Once you reach enlightenment you become a supreme acausal entity

>>41415933
>Atheism is not a positive claim nor a creed nor an organization.
the core of atheism is until there is verifiable proof things don't exist. buddhism ever since its arrival takes a stance devas and similar exist, which for ordinary atheist would already be outlandish. which atheism aims to ask - if there is a god where is the proof.
>But it does, because Buddhism says there is nothing permanent, and there is no ultimate source of all.
Because Buddhism is atheistic.
yes, in the scope of our suffering and limited coverage ones life has, all of our senses, experiences and beyond are suspect to impermanence, it doesn't have a take whether there is ultimate source behind our existence or not, because it is not only irrelevant but interchangeable with awareness.
>Show me where Buddhism accepts any tenet of theism.
read the pali texts, or are spirits inside the scope of atheism?
>Show me Buddhism saying there is a Supreme Person.
>Show me Buddhism saying there is an eternal source of all existence.
there isn't

>>41415982
>the core of atheism is until there is verifiable proof things don't exist.
No, fool, that is called EMPIRICISM.
>devas and similar exist
Are any the Supreme Person and eternal source of all existence?
No?
Then it is the same as saying zombies and dragons exist - it is perfectly compatible with atheism.
>it doesn't have a take whether there is ultimate source behind our existence or not
Yes it does. It denies it.
>are spirits inside the scope of atheism?
Yes, why wouldnt they be? What stupidity is this?
>there isn't
Because it is atheistic.

>>41416006
There's no reason why this "Supreme Person" needs to be the deciding factor of what is or isn't atheistic. That's a stipulation you're forcing on others, one that they're not obliged to accept. It's almost like you're arguing from a Vaishnavite perspective or some other specifically narrow view. That's fine for you but not everyone here adheres to that view.

>>41416059
>There's no reason why this "Supreme Person" needs to be the deciding factor of what is or isn't atheistic.
The central tenet of theism is that there is a Supreme Person. A-theism is the denial of such.

>>41416076
>The central tenet of theism is that there is a Supreme Person.
>what is polytheism
>multiple deities like Hades and Odin
lolwut?

>>41416091
>polytheism
Is not a question on the ultimate source. Most polytheists are Impersonalists on this matter. they accept a non-person, eternal source of all existence.
Which Buddhism ALSO denies.

>>41416076
Again, that's your narrow view, one that I reject, one that you will be unable to use to win any argument with anyone here. Atheism simply requires the denial that deities exist. Buddha acknowledged the existence of deities, so the term atheist doesn't exactly fit on him.

>>41416105
>Atheism simply requires the denial that deities exist.
Wrong. though I fiund it funny you try to run away by saying I have made an overly simplified definition.
Only for you to make an even simpler and MUCH MORE wrong one.
Buddhism is atheistic. They deny a Supreme Person. They deny an eternal source.

Agreeing that there are powerful aliens does not make you theistic.
And the fact that you try to argue this only shows you know how pathetic and weak the claioms of Busshims are.
That is why Buddhists are DESPERATE to be accepted in theism.

>>41416128
No, you're wrong, stubborn and stupid. And what the fuck is this lmao?
>That is why Buddhists are DESPERATE to be accepted in theism.

>>41416142
Poor little atheist ran out of arguments, still never going to be accepted as theistic, no matter how much they whine and cry.
Tell me - WHY is it so important for you that Buddhism deny the fact that it is atheist in nature?

>>41416006
>EMPIRICISM
okay, i tell my friend cycling to a shop is a good choice, he does this and verifies i am right. he tells his another friend cycling to a shop is a good choice, his friend says he will never again cycle to a shop it sucks. even though two of us agree it is a good choice, what is the problem? even though it is derived out of opinion it is empiricism, it has nothing to do with atheism. there isn't singular empiric study that could be verified through proof. atheism is extra personal, empiricism isn't.
>Then it is the same as saying zombies and dragons exist - it is perfectly compatible with atheism.
well, atheism is based upon a position that there isn't a god, unless proven otherwise.
>Yes, why wouldnt they be? What stupidity is this?
okay, i can read it for you like 5 years old. due to impermanence no matter what where or how, you don't arrive to the same conclusion unless you relive the exact circumstances, making a distinction out of this is to say - is there a way to realize something before impermanence other than change? the answer is no. our circumstance or ordinary senses are outside the scope of realizing the answer atheism looks for, until they aren't. therefore it is a moot point, from ontological and buddhist perspective atheism is completely irrelevant. in otherwords it doesn't matter what or who created our reality it isn't permanent, and impermanence wouldn't exclude a god, unless in your mind god has to be never changing and divine (without flaw), which would also be absurd.

>>41416149
I'm neither Buddhist nor atheist, you loser. I'm Christian. Whatever it is that some Buddhist did to you, it must have been pretty bad to leave you seething this much lol. Pathetic. Buddhists aren't atheist. Simple as that.

>>41416161
>okay, i tell my friend cycling to a shop is a good choice, he does this and verifies i am right. he tells his another friend cycling to a shop is a good choice, his friend says he will never again cycle to a shop it sucks. even though two of us agree it is a good choice, what is the problem? even though it is derived out of opinion it is empiricism, it has nothing to do with atheism. there isn't singular empiric study that could be verified through proof. atheism is extra personal, empiricism isn't.
Meds.
>atheism is based upon a position that there isn't a god
Not really. Atheism is not a positive claim of anything. It is a denial of an already stated claim.
>it doesn't matter what or who created our reality it isn't permanent
This is a denial of theism, which makes the positive assertion of an eternal being. Thus, Buddhism is atheistic.
>>41416167
Wrong. Buddhism is atheistic in nature.
And I notice you again ran like a little bitch from the question.
WHY is it so important for you that Buddhism deny the fact that it is atheist in nature?

>>41406905
Rather than take his advice and be still they attempt to grasp intellectually what is beyond affirmation and negation.

>There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, and unformed, therefore there is an escape from the born, originated, created, formed.

>>41416186
Wrong. Buddhism isn't atheist at all no matter how much you DESPERATELY need it to be. And this is a loaded question
>WHY is it so important for you that Buddhism deny the fact that it is atheist in nature?
Tell me WHY it's so important to you that Buddhism has to admit itself as atheistic as you so DESPERATELY claim. Answer that qustion, you pathetic little bitch.

>>41416186
>Not really. Atheism is not a positive claim of anything. It is a denial of an already stated claim.
what is the difference between denying there is a god and saying there isn't a god? what changed? you should read a book before discussing with people, you might start from pali texts instead of wasting yours and others time.
>This is a denial of theism, which makes the positive assertion of an eternal being. Thus, Buddhism is atheistic.
you should read what theism means, and then type the answer here.

maybe he just has a bone to pick with ambedkarites or something

>>41408033
Thats the one checked and thnx

>>41416209
>Tell me WHY it's so important to you that Buddhism has to admit itself as atheistic
Because that better fits with the literal and common usage of the word, not "powerful aliens".

And you cant answer, like a little bitch.
>>41416213
>what is the difference between denying there is a god and saying there isn't a god?
Nothing - that is your bad semantics trying to pretend there is an argument.
>you might start from pali texts
My question remain the same.
Do they accept a Supreme Person that is the ultimate uncaused cause, and the eternal source of all?
If not, it is atheistic.

>>41406905
Westerners get incomprehensibly obsessed with this lame religion, it's weird, any other oriental beliefs such as cultivation/qigong (for example) are more natural, better, and yet they'd instead hit their heads on a table to make sense of an anti-life anti-everything religion that needs you to doublethink and obsess over "enlightenment", literally.

>>41406905
Because western normies are literal non-sentient nigger cattle

>>41417704
>Nothing - that is your bad semantics trying to pretend there is an argument.
so why do you bring up the following, then?
>Not really. Atheism is not a positive claim of anything. It is a denial of an already stated claim.
>If not, it is atheistic.
buddhism is theistic by definition, learn to read, or do you have problems with comprehension?

>>41417799
daoism/qigong and buddhism result in the same thing, different path.

>>41413550
>Buddhism is probably even further removed than Christianity is from its root.
Literally the exact opposite of the case, wtf. i can recite personally recite 2 or 3 from memorization of the hundreds of basically exact word for word teachings preserved through monastic oral then written tradition in virtually the same cadence and accent and intonation that buddha/siddata gave the teaching in 2500 years ago. meanwhile you wont find a single person outside of a university history department who knows a lick of aramaic much less can quote exact teachings from jesus that weren't mangled by hundreds of years of he said she said bible shenanigans.
Not to say this is the only factor to consider when judging which is further from its root but its a potent example of how wrong this idea is. rest of your post is okay

A better question one should as is, "Why does everyone want me to take religion at face value, without any inference on cyphers and symbols?"

>>41420187
>so why do you bring up the following, then
I didn't. I brought up the fact that atheism is the denial of the Theistic assertion. You then altered the semantics and demanded that I provide a distinction.
Your semantic bullshit, not mine.
>buddhism is theistic by definition
Fake and gay.
Believing in powerful aliens is not Theism.
Why are you so desperate to say it is?
You never answered this before, because you ran like a little bitch.
Are you still a little bitch?

>>41406942
>saar you must shit in the middle of the street, rob or "at least" kill people, and throw garbage everywhere for 30 years... then you will be able to glimpse at the profundity of the teachings!
so you admit the "teachings" are a scam just like everything else in that shithole
>but it's like that all over the world, we are not worse!
case in point

>>41417704
>Because that better fits with the literal and common usage of the word, not "powerful aliens".
According to you maybe, but you're a dumb lil bitch. And who the fuck brought up aliens? Lol.

>>41420713
>Your semantic bullshit, not mine.
Yeah, because your semantic bullshit is centered around the all so important concept of the "supreme person". It would be akin to trinitarian Christians calling Jews and Muslims atheist simply because they deny the Trinity. Also, WHY are you so DESPERATE to make it seem like we brought up "powerful aliens"?

>>41420288
I would actually agree with the other anon in certain cases like Tibetan Buddhism. Also where it concerns certain concepts like the trikaya, especially dharmakaya. We can't realistically expect any religion to not develop new concepts as it progresses over hundreds or thousands of years.

>>41420807
>your semantic bullshit
Using literal and common usage is not semantic bullshit. You are desperate and have no argument and even worse analogies that don't fit.
>Also, WHY are you so DESPERATE to make it seem like we brought up "powerful aliens"?
So you run like a little bitch again, but want to ask questions that were already answered.
>Because that better fits with the literal and common usage of the word, not "powerful aliens".
Now answer the question asked to you, little coward bitch.
>WHY is it so important for you that Buddhism deny the fact that it is atheist in nature?
I've answered your question.
You are too scared and too aware of how wrong you are to answer mine.

>>41420713
>atheism is the denial of the Theistic assertion.
since you are so oblivious let me cite what theism stands for.
Wikipedia:
>"Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of at least one deity.[1][2] In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the philosophical conception of God that is found in classical theism—or the conception found in monotheism—or gods found in polytheistic religions—or a belief in God or gods without the rejection of revelation, as is characteristic of deism."
Similarly
>"Non-theism and atheism is commonly understood as non-acceptance or outright rejection of theism in the broadest sense of the term (i.e., non-acceptance or rejection of belief in God or gods).[5][6] Related (but separate) is the claim that the existence of any deity is unknown or unknowable; a stance known as agnosticism.[7][8] Agnostic theism is a personal belief in one or more deities along with acceptance that the existence or non-existence of the deity or deities is fundamentally unknowable. "
Here is for god:
>"In monotheistic belief systems, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith.[1] In polytheistic belief systems, a god is "a spirit or being believed to have created, or for controlling some part of the universe or life, for which such a deity is often worshipped".[2] Belief in the existence of at least one deity, who may interact with the world, is called theism.[3]"
now reread your answers and tell me, how is buddhism atheistic?

>>41421258
Lmao you ask a loaded question that presumes Buddhism to be atheistic in nature when that’s exactly the issue being debated. You’re not sneaking that in so easily, you stupid little bitch. Buddhism doesn’t deny the existence of gods, therefore it’s not atheistic. You keep trying to wriggle your way around that, you dishonest little worm.

>>41422005
Buddhism's ontological framework is not merely non-theistic; it is a systematic and total annihilation of the theistic premise. It does not argue against a god; it operates on a plane of understanding where the concept is so intellectually flimsy as to be beneath refutation. The universe, in the Buddhist view, is a self-regulating system of cause and effect (karma) and interdependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda). The insertion of an omnipotent, uncaused cause is not an answer to a metaphysical question, but a violation of the most fundamental axioms of reality—a primitive non-sequitur introduced to soothe the terror of existential uncertainty. The very notion of a creator is logically incoherent within a model where all things without exception are conditioned and transient.

This philosophical rigor reaches its devastating conclusion in the doctrine of anattā (no-self), which eviscerates the very subject of theistic desire. Theism is a dualistic contract: an eternal soul (atman) seeks communion with an eternal God. Buddhism demonstrates that the first party to this contract is a fiction. What the theist clings to as their soul is a temporary confluence of aggregates—a psychophysical process mistaken for a permanent entity. Therefore, the search for God is not a noble quest; it is a profound and tragic case of mistaken identity, a deluded projection of a non-existent self onto an imaginary external absolute. The project of Buddhism is to terminate this delusion, not to fulfill its longing.

File: 1000029350~2.jpg (275 KB, 1600x1513)

275 KB JPG

The Christian compulsion to see God in Buddhism is not a theological stance, but a raw, emotional hemorrhage. It is the desperate thrashing of a psyche that has outsourced its entire existential security to a divine parent. Confronted with the serene, self-reliant architecture of the Dharma—a path that requires no worship, no submission, no savior—they experience not intellectual disagreement, but a primal separation anxiety. Their insistence that the Buddha was "seeking God" or that Nirvana is "union with the Divine" is a pathetic act of projection, akin to a person lost at sea insisting that every landmark must be a rescue ship. They cannot conceive of salvation as an inside job because their entire spiritual identity is built on the desperate need for an external rescuer.

This is what makes the Buddhist position so existentially devastating to them. It doesn't just propose a different god; it calmly, methodically demonstrates that the very concept is a psychological crutch. The Dharma reveals that the longing for a divine other is not a path to truth, but the very symptom of the disease of ignorance and craving. To truly comprehend this is to have the floor of one's universe drop out. The ensuing fury is not born of a challenged idea, but of a terrifying glimpse into a void they have spent a lifetime filling with prayer. They seethe because Buddhism exposes their profound spiritual dependency, offering in its place a chilling, majestic, and utterly lonely freedom that their neediness cannot bear to embrace.

>>41420892
Yeah actually you and other anon are right when it comes to tibetan and mahayana buddhism. i was thinking about theravada, and just now realize most westerners do not think about theravada at all when thinking about buddhism despite it being the oldest most preserved and arguably best sect

>>41422736
Based ai gpt writeup

>>41422736
Hindu gods are still present in Buddhist. Sam Harris lied to you

>>41423680
*Buddhism

>>41422729
jfc more chatgpt

>>41423003
Well, I'm not sure how important or relevant the schism between Sthaviravada and Mahasamghika is in this context, but I largely agree that Theravada is closest as can be to the original teachings. But since I'm not Buddhist, I have no real skin in the game.