PeterC wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 3:44 am
Ok, but which statements specifically? Said where? They weren’t in the video at the top of the thread
They are both pretty well known, if you are some fan of the guy you should actually know about them. One was the one where he called Islam "an incredible evil" or something similar, and doofusly stepped around his comments when called to explain them. One was where he penned an obnoxious letter about how a Western feminist should basically just shut up because women in Islamic countries have it so much worse. Nothing demonic, but pretty moronic. If you want more info just look em up. He also has a professional group of haters, which I don't think is necessarily right, but their criticism is warranted in places.
As do I. I don’t need any of that to justify or explain my Dharma practice. I think most “spirituality” is complete BS. My position is, fwiw, in accordance with the Buddhadharma.
No it's not, it's in accord with your feelings and personal opinions. Virtually every Buddhist text which examines other belief systems does so dispassionately, and with very little value judgement. "I think most spirituality is BS" isn't some dispassionate examination of view, ethics, etc. it is just an expressive emotional reaction to whatever you think "spirituality" is. Maybe it's fair that you dislike religion and religious things (there is surely plenty there to dislike), but it isn't "in accord with Buddhadharma" to feel a certain way about religions, it just makes it in accord your personal conditioning, however you came by it. You dislike religion in the same way I dislike both religion and people who make "atheism" into a snarky, pointless and elitist identarian philosophy. We have both mainly been talking about what we like and don't like though, not so much the various things that Buddhism says. So no, nothing like that is necessarily "in accordance with Buddhadharma", it's in accordance with us.
That is a fair and honest comment. Dawkins would probably think me a fool for practising the Dharma. I do have a pretty good counterargument for him that applies only to the Dharma and not other religions. But I don’t need to respond to his opinion because it in now way affects or impedes my practice.
I don't need to either, but I feel reasonably ok saying that I don't think his overall worldview has much to recommend it in Buddhist terms. Since we are on a Buddhist forum discussing a well-known materialist thinker and all, I think that shouldn't be unexpected.
Perhaps we too should object to the broadness of the term “atheists”. Buddhists are atheists too. #notallatheists?
Buddhists are certainly atheists in the technical sense, who tend to have some pretty different views of the world than materialist atheists. Non-theist is probably a more accurate term since it is the soteriological lack of necessity of deities which defines the Buddhist view, rather than their non-existence.
I am not calling Dawkins a monster, just a dippy guy sometimes with some boringly imperialist beliefs in places, who is possessed of some great knowledge in other areas. You seem to be comparing a liberal UCC minister or something to to Westboro Baptist Church leader because they are both "theists". If types of theism can be that divergent, then surely so can different types of atheism.