In fact, besides the “errors” that were pointed out, my whole argument could be totally slaughtered by hard, cold logic alone. But I’ll leave you guys to work that one out lest I embark on a 1000 word diatribe.
Anonymous: You are quite correct in your definition of atheism. In its strictest sense it has nothing to do with the “afterlife” debate. As you say, it simply rejects a belief in God. You are more articulate than I was at the time.
*I’ve got no agenda here, but I’d just like to say that Buddhism is not a theism. The Buddha was an ordinary human who awoke from the deluded slumber we are all born into. Any of us can achieve that state. The subsequent Buddhist rituals (some of which could appear as “worship”) is a man-made creation. Inevitable.
Joel: Yes, you are correct too my man. The Buddha declined to comment on an afterlife. Indeed the Buddha’s point of view on an afterlife was not dissimilar to Socrates stance (see original post) before he was put to death.
The concept of “Nothingness” as I said, shares much with the concept of “infinity”. In fact, I would even stick my BiPolar neck out and propose that the two concepts actually refer to the same thing.
Cannot be defined
Cannot be spoken about.
The Tao that can be told
Is not the eternal Tao
– The Tao te Ching
Whereof one cannot speak,
Thereof one must remain silent
“There are no answers. Only choices”