The Buddha was an atheist.

As I am short on time, my rebuttals this round will be comparatively shorter. “I agree that both is impossible to overcome however, this again confirms my point on the Atheistic stance of the Buddha, how He fails to touch on such a subject and then basically tells us that humans are ultimately dependent on their minds to provide them with the necessary means of mental stability. ” Pro finds my statements regarding the Buddha’s idea of God to be proof of his atheistic stance; however, it is evident that the Buddha has stated that this transcendental Supreme Being exists (known as the Absolute). This is, without a doubt, a truth. This simple fact should be enough to prove myself right. Simply because the Buddha did not describe the Absolute in the same terms as Jesus or Muhammad does not mean that He did not believe in God at all. To assume this would be a non sequitur and would be contrary to the Buddha’s statements concerning the existence of God. Pro’s attempts to demonstrate that this is atheism have no basis. I refer my opponent to my previous argument where I demonstrated that the Buddha made similar statements regarding the true nature of the cosmos (and even of the Tathagata). The Buddha certainly believed in the existence of the cosmos and the universe but stated they were beyond comprehension. He even argued that He (the Tathagata) was beyond comprehension (I demonstrated this in round 1). Does this mean He did not believe in the Tathagata or in the cosmos? Once again, this would be false. Pro attempts to disprove this argument by saying: “Briefly the Cosmos does and did exist, but the fact that every Messenger of God makes an attempt to describe it, confirms the Buddha's Atheistic approach to such an "unanswerable" question at His time. ” I must emphasize that the other prophets are not relevant to the teachings of the Buddha for this debate and that my opponent’s logic does not follow. What the other Messengers of God taught in the past is not relevant to the Buddha’s teachings on the existence of God. “Throughout the verses that Con has presented to us, it's clear to us that the Buddha is iffy on the questions that are asked of Him. ” The Buddha was quite clear and firm on the matter of God. He explicitly stated where He received His divine station and knowledge of dharma and demonstrated that His station is beyond men. He clearly told His followers that He was not uncertain on these metaphysical matters, but rather that the knowledge He had on these matters would not be conducive to the people of His time. Pro asks me the following question: “If the Buddha claimed Monotheistic beliefs, then why do 2 Messengers appear between Krishna and the Buddha, whos Messages share the same spiritual content and are continued AFTER the Buddha? ” I am not sure why Pro asks me this, as it has no bearing on the teachings of the Buddha that I have presented. Unless Pro can demonstrate my presentation of the Buddha’s teachings to be false, this appears to be irrelevant. Regardless, the answer to this question does not somehow prove that the Buddha was an atheist. By this logic, Jesus was also an atheist. There were many prophets before and after the time of Jesus with similar spiritual content, and these religions established by these prophets continued on after Jesus. Does this somehow mean that Jesus was an atheist? Of course not. It simply doesn’t follow. Likewise, the logic that the religions of prophets continue on after the Buddha is almost entirely irrelevant to the beliefs of the Buddha. “Con has also stated that my argument regarding the Buddha not relying on God is wrong because the Buddha, as Con writes, teaches His followers to attain Nirvana. ” This would be incorrect. I did not argue this. My argument was that, without the Absolute, it would have been impossible for the one known as Siddhartha Gautama to attain the station of the Buddha. This achievement was the result of the exaltation of the Absolute. The dharma He taught was also from the Absolute. This is how the Buddha relied on God. Conclusion: My arguments presented in round 2 are still valid. Many of Pro’s rebuttals consist of correlations between Buddhism and other religions, which are not relevant to the Buddha’s belief in God. If Pro is to succeed in this debate, he must demonstrate that the Buddha did not believe in God. He has not succeeded in doing this and has, at best, argued that the Buddha was “iffy” on these matters.