Cittasanto wrote:you havn't shown anything regarding the term [atheism],
Except where I discussed the term, it various usages, and quoting and referencing, as necessary, various sources to make my point: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13029&start=140#p196260viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13029&start=120#p196204The Buddhist Attitude to God
.Buddhism and the God-ideaviewtopic.php?f=14&t=13029&start=80#p196024
I do not see the point in dispraising YA! here.
All one has to do read the responses to your posting.
the issue is how to classify Buddhism which does not give the wrong impression, as Buddhist atheism is starting up and taking stances along the lines of there is no rebirth with one leader of the movement being Stephen Batchelor. there are those who are Buddhist monotheists, or hold other philosophic views hand in hand with Buddhist but I would no sooner say that any combination is good description.
Yet none of this escapes the fact that Buddhism is not (a)without (theos)a god in one shape or form.
Batchelor is expressing his own particular point of view, which is not an accurate reflection of what the Buddha taught. As for the "gods" I have dealt with that at length and in detail. To repeat:
The "gods" within the suttas are certainly not what they were in the Brahmanical texts/teachings from whence they came. The Buddha directly rejected an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, which is essentially a theological statement, putting the Buddha's teachings in that context of talking about agent driven creation in an atheist context, and the gods, while having been retained by the Buddha, have been severely demoted, subsumed, and markedly subordinated by the Buddha's teachings, putting the Buddha in a superior position. You can call the devas in the suttas gods if you want, but they are very limited, at best figurehead gods, and they are, indeed, markedly different from how the Hindus view them. While the gods in general have not been rejected as has the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos, they have been subsumed and subordinated, leaving them with no actual significance or power in terms of the core of the Buddha's teachings, and all of this is what gives the unique characteristics to Buddhist atheism.
Accepting one god but denying another isn't actually atheistic by any definition I have seen
The point is that the creative omniscient, omnipotent, permanent, independent, unique agent that is the cause of the cosmos function is what has been denied, and in the process the gods as a whole have been severely suborbninated. The atheistic feature is that there is simply no creator god. There is no:
“Supreme being, Creator and Ruler of the Universe.” -- The Concise Oxford Dictionary
"“There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts or passions;
of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things both visible and
invisible ….” -- The Book of Common Prayer
"That Worshipful God, the Great God, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, the Organizer, the Protection, the Creator, the Most Perfect Ruler, the Designer and Orderer, the Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be, He by Whom we were created, He is permanent, Constant, Eternal, Unchanging, and He will remain so for ever and ever." -- DN 24
In that the Buddha's teachings are atheistic, and they are atheistic in the radical reduction of the gods to naught more than mortal beings which have no necessary significance in the striving for awakening.
yet they are still gods and the atheist context would remove gods entirely due to a lack of solid proof.
As I have already stated, in presenting the Buddhist point of view, the issue is not trying to provide proof for the existence of the devas. It is, rather, simply pointing out what it is that the Buddha taught and what are the underlying principles. In other words: This is what the Buddha taught, these are the underlying principles at play.
Buddhism has a nontheistic approach as although it is inclusive of gods, they are not involved or important to the practice; it is not a atheistic approach as the belief in gods is still present.
And we have seen the problem with calling Buddhism non-theistic. As you said above: "Yet none of this escapes the fact that Buddhism is not (a)without (theos)a god in one shape or form."
If the devas are gods, then Buddhism is, in fact, theistic. Being non-theistic, as the word suggests, would mean being without (non) gods (theism), but that is not the case. "Non-theism" is a non-starter. What is the case is the core function attributed to a capital "G" God has been rejected and the "gods" of the suttas have, in terms of the goal of the Buddha's teachings, no significance. In other words, the Buddha's teachings, in terms of the capital "G" God, is a form of atheism.
but there comes a point of agreeing to dissagree so have the last word if you wish.
Thank you for the last word.