A Question From Atheists

[Astonished]

Always with the carrot and the stick, isn't it?

Well, it's not like the severing attachments thing is a positive moral preachment either, so they can't even claim to have that edge over Judeo-Christian religions in terms of fucking with people's minds.

[nosferatu323]

Always with the carrot and the stick, isn't it?

I think in Buddhism carrot and stick is not the case. Although it suggests to attain Nirvana, it makes it clear that you can remain in Samsara by seeking attachments. However it also warns you that you will experience alternate peace/suffering, positive karma/negative karma due to the ever changing nature of Samsara as we are all seem to be experiencing in our life. In fact there is no "reward" for your actions in Buddhism, it suggests a seeker of Nirvana to develop positive karma (good attachments) by good conduct, since positive attachments can be easily removed compared to negative attachments which stick, but it emphasizes that Nirvana is always possible regardless of your karmic state which resembles the concept of forgiveness in Judo-Christian religions, no matter how much sin, God forgives. But the more sin one has, the less is the chance for him to ask for Lord's forgiveness. Similarly also, forgiveness or dropping the attachments is always required, in Judo-Christian religions no one can enter paradise without forgiveness, regardless of good deeds or positive Karma.

---

It also appeared to me that carrot and stick is not the case with Christianity either, since all are forgiven, they just have to realize it by believing in the sacrifice of the Son, the actions are irrelevant. So in fact in Christianity, one only needs to believe in the Son. That might be the reason why Christians are not obliged to the commandments of their religions compared to Jews and Muslims, which makes Christianity a much less effective religion in my opinion in terms of controlling the mass.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think you're accurately communicating the built in motivators to action in either religion, nor do I think you're really grasping the idea of the carrot and the stick, lol.

Do what we say and you will get this thing x you want.  Fail to do what we say and you will suffer.  

Buddhist version - Do x y and z and you'll achieve nirvana.  Fail and you will suffer.
Christian version - Bow and be rewarded.  Fail and burn.

[nosferatu323]

I don't think you're accurately communicating the built in motivators to action in either religion, nor do I think you're really grasping the idea of the carrot and the stick, lol.

Do what we say and you will get this thing x you want.  Fail to do what we say and you will suffer.  

Buddhist version - Do x y and z and you'll achieve nirvana.  Fail and you will suffer.
Christian version - Bow and be rewarded.  Fail and burn.

I think I understand. But there is no action involved in either case as I see it. One asserts merely believing in the sacrifice of the son, Buddhism asserts releasing from the attachments. I think releasing from attachments is not an action either, I think it simply means not expecting any reactions from for your actions. The difference is clear when you compare these religions with Islam for example, almost all Muslims do prayers in the exact same way 5 times a day, they don't drink alcohol, they fast during their holy month, premarital and extramarital relationships are very rare among them, etc., in contrast Christians are characterized by merely a personal love for a personal Jesus Christ, in general they don't do anything that distinguishes them from a non-Christian as far as I know. A Buddhist can be anything according to their own definition also, being Buddhist is not necessarily reflected in the actions of the individual, and there is no emphasis on using the meditation techniques offered by different schools of Buddhism. 

Also in Buddhism, it makes it clear that many prefer to remain in Samsara. Samsara is not pure suffering like the Christian hell is.

[The Grand Nudger]

No action?  I think you're getting silly again.  A commitment to buddhist or christer thought and practice is required in both cases.

No religious system holds out a free lunch.  How would the shamans get paid, then?

[Astonished]

No action?  I think you're getting silly again.  A commitment to buddhist or christer thought and practice is required in both cases.

No religious system holds out a free lunch.  How would the shamans get paid, then?

Believing, by force of will, is absolutely an action, whether or not you are required to perform any mechanical actions in accordance with it. Having to contemplate the proposition, weigh it against what you know and what you feel, there's no way that at a minimum some demand is being made on the person so it's an imposition on some level at the very least. I hate when people try to make it sound like "Oh, it's that easy!" like they're above that whole thing. This is why some of my favorite authors are right when they say there's no Eastern solution to the problem of faith.

[Der/die AtheistIn]

A God is an entity that created and/or controlls a certain element or more elements. The idea of the Universe being God is like saying that the Universe has a consciousness or that it's God without consciousness. Atheists don't believe in a creator or controller of the world.

[YouOnlyLiveTwice]

Atheists don't believe in any sort of God — that is, any being or intelligence that has power over human and/or natural elements. That includes the pantheist God, which is just saying that the universe and God are synonymous as a higher intelligence. Atheists don't believe the universe has a consciousness of its own that constitutes some sort of higher intelligence, because, again, that would mean believing in a God.

[downbeatplumb]

Certainly, would that benefit you at all?

Well, I'd have to start performing in porn first for it to affect my earnings, but I'm too out of shape.

Two words, Ron Jeremy.

[TheBeardedDude]

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to understand the Atheist's point of view and I came across a question, I'd be grateful if you guys help me figure it out.

As you know there are many different gods in various cultures and religions which are significantly varied. The term "God" does not refer to a specific entity. So when you guys say "I don't believe in God" which god(s) are you referring to? What is the definition of that god which does not exist? There are certain gods that clearly do exist . Like the Pantheist's god which is the universe itself, so I assume you are referring to a "certain group of gods" I'd like to know what defines that certain group?  

Thanks for reading and sorry for any mistakes or inaccuracies in my use of the English language. 

Cheers.

Any and every god concept I've heard of, I either disbelieve or believe it is synonymous with something else and is therefore a useless term (equating love or the universe with "god" for instance)


Cheers
TheBeardedDude