Reply #183: Who dat?

[dpibel]

I'd be interested in finding these atheists who give a pass to Buddhism because of their purblind ignorance. AFAIK, no self-respecting atheist lends credence to any religion (with the exception, I guess, of UU, which is perfectly happy to have you be an atheist if you are).

Perhaps you are confused by the fact that it's very, very rare (right about zero, I'd say) on DU for a Buddhist to tell an atheist that having "seek the Dharma" on currency would constitute no endorsement of Buddhism, or that, no matter how misled they are, Buddha loves them anyway.

Seems to me that the discussion centers around Christianity because, well, there's a bunch of Christians around here. If nobody brings up Buddhism, nobody discusses Buddhism.

Here's an interesting thought exercise for you: Christians get all up in arms if people refer to "mythology" when speaking of Christianity. You surely are not suggesting that the beliefs of Christianity (triune god, angels, demons, evil spirits, witches, seers) are more worthy and true than the Buddhist pantheon of similar beings?

There are plenty of live-and-let-live Christians around here, just as there are many live-and-let-live atheists. I'd say both are in the majority. The rarified, really smart brand of Christianity may be really cool. But that's not what's getting bruited about here, is it?

By the by, could you help me understand why a "a highly evolved, intellectual, and nuanced version of christian theology," to which, I must assume from your post, you are privy, would be of any interest to a person who does not believe in god? Or is this version of Christianity so rarified that it has abandoned that part?

It seems to me that, if one does not believe in god, it matters not whether it's 47 or 412 angels doing the schottische on the head of a pin.