The Buddha was an atheist.

“So, if we compare Buddhism to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, we can conclude that Buddhism has no God or gods where people submit to in exchange for some solace.” It is true that, from the available documents that we possess, the Buddha did not emphasize the Absolute in the same sense of Christianity or Islam. In fact, He often remained silent on these metaphysical matters regarding God or the universe; however, this should not be construed to mean that the Buddha did not believe in God or was ignorant on these matters. Instead, it is because of our inability to comprehend the essence of the Absolute or of God that He did not attempt to explain it. As Jamshed Fozdar said, “… for rationality here to demand empirical proof of the ineffable state is for the cup to insist on containing the boundless ocean.” That is, just as it is impossible for a cup to contain the entirety of the ocean, it is also impossible for the human mind to comprehend God. This is supported by the Buddha’s answer to one of His listeners, Malunkyaputta, who insisted that the Buddha must answer his metaphysical questions concerning God and the cosmos. If the Buddha refused to answer Malunkyaputta’s questions, then he threatened that he would give up on a religious life. This is the Buddha’s response: “A man is hit by a poisoned arrow. His friends hasten to the doctor. The latter is about to draw the arrow out of the wound. The wounded man, however, cries: ‘Stop, I will not have the arrow drawn out until I know who shot it, whether a woman, or a Brahmin, a Vaisya, or a Sudra, to which family he belonged, whether he was tall or short, of what species and description the arrow was.’” [1] The analogy being drawn is that the man will die before he can obtain all this knowledge, and it would be better for the doctor to administer treatment right away. In a similar manner, the Buddha taught that these questions about God would not help the people at the time to turn away from earthly desires or to the attainment of nirvana. He could spend His entire life explaining it to us, but we would die before we would understood (for, as I have already explained, it is impossible for us to understand the essence of God). The Buddha even says this about the Absolute and the nature of the cosmos: “If by the Absolute is meant something out of relation to all known things, its existence cannot be established by any known reasoning. How can we know about anything unrelated to other relations: we know nothing that is, or can be related.” “Then Buddha said: ‘Subhuti, words cannot explain the real nature of the cosmos. Only common people fettered with desire make use of this arbitrary method.” [2] Would Pro also argue that the cosmos do not exist, because the Buddha stated that we could never understand or describe it? This would surely be false. In a similar manner, it would be false to say that the Buddha did not believe in God or the Absolute merely because He told us that we could never comprehend It. “How does this relate to the Buddha? Well, it is the Buddha who taught such methods of mental stress-suppression and Self-reliance, which means that the Buddha did not rely on God or a god to assist Him throughout His endeavors.” It would not be correct to say that the Buddha never relied on God to assist Him. I would agree that Pro is mostly correct, because the Buddha stated: “So also, my disciples, is that much more which I have learned and have not told you, than that which I have told you. And, wherefore, my disciples, have I not told you that? Because, my disciples, it brings you no profit, it does not conduce to progress in holiness; because it does not lead to the turning from earthly to the subjection of all desires … to nirvana; therefore have I not declared it unto you.” [3] At the same time, we should look to my arguments in round 2. We clearly saw that it is the Absolute that exalts the Buddha and allows Him to teach His dharma. So while you may argue that God is not necessary for the cessation of desire, it is evident that without God, the Buddha would have never attained such a station. “This idea that the self governs all is clear when the Buddha directly connects the self to a Godlike station” The quote provided by Pro is given by the Samantabhadra Buddha. Some view this Buddha as a form of the universal Mind of Awakening, but it is nevertheless a different Buddha. The Buddha (born as Siddhartha Gautama) taught detachment from self and explicitly stated that where truth is, self is not: “There is self and there is truth. Where self is, truth is not. Where truth is, self is not. Self is the fleeting error of samsara; it is the individual separateness and that egoism which begets envy and hatred. Self is the yearning for pleasure and the lust after vanity.” [4] This does not mean that the Buddha taught that there is no self, however. He distinguished false self from true self (i.e. our physical forms and consciousness as opposed to the soul-mind). He even stated to general Siha that: “Great is a successful general, O Siha, but he who has conquered self is the greater victor. The doctrine of the conquest of self, O Siha, is not taught to destroy the souls of men, but to preserve them.” [5] “The simple answer is no, because monotheism was a very foreign concept to the Buddha and India. This was due to the world He lived in, which was filled with numerous gods with the creator Brahma being the most important.” I agree that many of the Christian concepts of God are quite different from the Buddha’s teachings on the Absolute, yet this does not prove He didn’t believe in God. It merely proves that He would not have used the specific word “God” to describe that supreme entity. He would not have made it a personal being that we can relate to. I previously pointed out that the Buddha taught a sort of “Unmanifest Brahma”, but rejected the personal notions that people had of Brahma at the time. “This Buddhist Trinity (for lack of a better term), does not include or even touch on the subject of God or a single Supreme Power, like the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions do.” I believe I have already addressed this matter above, where I talked about how knowing about God is not necessary for the attainment of nirvana. This is because the three jewels are the three things Buddhists take refuge in (or where they look for guidance), and I already established that knowledge of the essence God or the Absolute is not necessary for this. Even though the Absolute is not in the three jewels, does this mean that the Buddha did not talk of the Absolute? No. There are a myriad of things not included in the three jewels that the Buddha still spoke of and believed in. Following this logic, we could deduce that the Buddha believed nothing exists except for the three jewels, which would, of course, be false. [1] Majjhima-nikaya, I. 63 [2] Vajra-Sattva, XXX [3] Samyutta, v. 437 [4] Katha Upanishad, III. 7 [5] Mahavagga, VI. 31