Is naturalism just another name for atheism?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pathless,

thank you for the post.

i realize you are dialoging with ATF, however, i hope you do not mind my interruption. just an aside, i have no feelings towards the idea of a Creator Deity one way or the other, in the sense that i would like or dislike such a notion.

Originally Posted by Pathless

.. where all beings are interconnected and inter-be as (part of) God? Isn't this doctrine found in Buddhism?

this is an oft misunderstood aspect of the Buddha Dharma. our teachings do not say that everything is part of everything else, we do not teach monism.

Of course, if you take the approach that Buddhism is an atheistic religion--which seems like an oxymoron to me,

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

what part seems oxymoronic with regards to Buddha Dharma, in your view?

but I understand what you are saying and that atheism is a stance taken by many Buddhists--the doctrine would substitute the word Nirvana, perhaps, instead of God.

Nibbana/Nirvana is not a deity of any sort, especially a Creator Deity. Buddha Dharma teaches that such beings as deities exist. it denies that there is a Creator Deity. moreover, such deities are inconsequential in the practice of Dharma and, as such, most Buddhist practice lineages are unconcerned with them.

Yet even in Buddhism, which does place emphasis on individual effort, it is recognized that none of us are isolated or lone individuals working for enlightenment; it's all interconnected and we all inter-be together.

not just humans. all phenomena within the universe arise in mutual dependence upon each other. that does not mean, however, that "all is one".

So, while we can make individual effort, we really can't do much on our own, strictly speaking.

not in the Buddhist view. it is you, and you alone, which determine the outcome of your practice as Buddha Shakyamuni explains in multiple Sutta/Sutras.

metta,

~v

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Well put, Siverbackman. My reaction to atheism has been much the same, but I've never been able to articulate it as well as you just did; it's been more of a gut feeling: "Atheism seems stupid to me." But you're right, I think; Atheists are threatened or offended by the idea of God. Thanks for expressing that thought.

Are you sure you aren't "projecting"? You seem threatened or offended by atheism, or at least that how I interpret your gut feeling that "atheism seems stupid". I could be wrong about that, of course.

I personally am not threatened or offended by the idea of God. I might be morally offended by certain conceptions of God, e.g. one that would sentence non-believers to eternal punishment. But I'm not offended by the idea that a God exists. I simply don't believe in one for philosophical reasons and lack of evidence. If a benevolent God existed, I would be fine with that.

Naturally, I'm just speaking for myself, and not for all atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Silverbackman

I describe myself a Naturalist. To me Nature IS God . But unlike atheists I do not believe that Nature is limited to Its laws of Nature and I do believe it has conscious (the source of all consciousness). It can do anything It wants but choses to enforce Its laws for a reason we may never know (atleast anytime soon). This would mean Nature is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent.
Atheism in many ways does not exist. Unless by atheist you mean denying the existence of a God, then we are all atheists in a sense. Atheists believe in Nature and yet they deny it isn't a God. Why is this? Because atheists are offended and have something against the term God. When most atheists think of God they think of the stereotypical Christian white man God with a long beard sitting on a throne in a different realm taking tabs on what people do . God does not have to be this primitive.

There is nothing in the name; it is attributes assigned to the Being, which is more important. What I gather from you post is that you are may be allergic primarily to the Christian concept of God, based on Trinity, and that you don’t accept that? Brian pointed it out in some post in another thread that whatever Atheists he has come across they are found out to be deists but they don’t want to be associated with the Christian, God and Son of God together in One with another one. These are not Brian’s exact words but that is what I understood from his post. SB had confirmed that. Nevertheless, I mention here that Jesus, his mother Mary, and his twelve disciples were from the Jews and in my opinion his belief in God was like that of the Jews and there is no proof from Bible that he himself ever announced any in change in that.
The post is very interesting and informative, I appreciate it.
To me initially, the name is not that important i.e. you may call Him, as Permaishar, Bhagwan, Ahura-Mazda, Jehovah, Allah or God etc, as long as the attributes are the same if one calls Him as Nature, with a capitol T, it doesn’t matter, to me he is a deist/theist ,only if one prefers to be associated with the other deists, but if he is comfortable associating with the atheists, that is his choice which could not be denied to him.
You believe some attributes to your Nature, namely Omnipresent-present everywhere, Omniscient-knowing everything, Omnipotent-having unlimited or very great power, and you do believe that it or now He (Nature) has also conscious rather the source of all consciousness.
Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908),he was a man of God on him God also revealed his word, has discussed this subject extensively and philosophically in his many books, in the light of many Quranic verses. It may not suit here on this forum to quote from him. So, I want to convey following points in fact originated by him but stated in my words:-
1. The attributes of God or assigned to God are interwoven and interconnected, if you reject one of His attributes that would logically and naturally effect other attributes and one by one you shall have to reject all the other attributes and ultimately left with none. For instance if one believes that God is All-Seeing and All-Hearing (Nature is conscious ,the source of all consciousness, as mentioned by you) then logically and naturally it should be All-Seeing and All-Hearing .Now if some poor Man, in a miserable condition, or in distress calls this deity Nature to address his woes, and he does repeat it for so many days and months, and neither receives any reply from Nature nor his distress is addressed, that Man would logically have to conclude that the Nature has become deaf and dumb, talking is another proof of consciousness, or the Nature has lost any consciousness worth the name, Nature is of no use and finally he shall have to declare that Nature might be dead, why to believe in it? So, one shall have to start making or assigning attributes to God, anew. What a helpless deity in the making? Can it not reveal all its attributes to man like God revealed unto Adam, or to Moses, or to Krishna, or to Buddha, or to Zoroaster, or to Jesus or to Muhammad etc.
2. It is true that on seeing and observing the perfect systems and laws of the Universe, man could reach a stage where he could think logically and morally that there should be a Creator or Controller of this universe. But that is only a conjecture, there may be or may not be, he would be in a state of doubt, sometimes believing and sometimes not believing and wavering. He would never logically reach the stage of certainty that God is, unless God himself reveals through perfect men, called prophets.By His words revealed on Moses, Jesus and Muhammad the certainty stage is is achieved.
Silverbackman Anyway welcome in the theist community.
Thanks

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

Many religious people categorize Atheism as a single belief structure all on its own, but I challenge that view.

I am a religious person, a Buddhist. I am also an Atheist as I do not believe in God. I think this demonstrates quite well that a person can be Atheist but still believe in something, like naturalism for example.

So I would say that, no, Naturalism is not another name for Atheism, but it can be a subset of Atheism, just like Christianity is not just another name for Monotheism, but it is a subset of Monotheism



I can't speak for all Atheists, but I certainly am offended by the idea of God. The existence of the Judeo-Christian type God means that I can never take credit for anything I have achieved on my own, any level of Spiritual or Physical attainment, it is all down to him for making me the way I am and for watching over me and helping me.

It is like me saying that no matter what you achieve, it is all down to me, secretly working behind the scenes to help you out. I secretly helped you get your degree, score the winning goal, run the marathon, save your marriage, it was all me, you could never have done any of it on your own.

That is how I feel about God.

Peace
ATF

Hi ATF,

Just out of curiosity, who is this "self" that is offended?

Peace

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Just out of curiosity, who is this "self" that is offended?

Does it matter in the context of this discussion?


eudaimonia,

Mark

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

Does it matter in the context of this discussion?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Only to the person to whom this was directed

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Only to the person to whom this was directed

Why is that?


eudaimonia,

Mark