A question for atheists

Being raised Roman Catholic,(I have since left the church) I have little understandings of the specific underpinings of atheism as a philosophy, movement, way of thought..

My question is what credence does atheism give to buddhist or taoist teachings? What does atheism say about eastern concepts such as interdependence or the Godhead consciousness, our ground of being.

I know atheism does not believe in a antropomorhized version of God, but what about the idea that God is pure consciousness, total being and that we are not really separate from that energy and awareness?

thanks for your replys.

just that one does not believe there is a god.

there are certain aspects of some religions that i do believe in ...and believe them to be philosophies i want to live by but ones that are not necessarily ordained by god

there is also secular philosophies that i live by.

why should one atheist's thoughts and beliefs match all? I would hope that each individual, whether atheist or not, would go on their own special spiritual journey.

atheists as far as I know don't really even consider themselves to be part of a philosophy. Agnostics (which I am) feel that no proof is present that can show that a god exists OR does not exist. I am also an amateur student of Buddhism which is indeed a philosophy not a religion and insofar within Buddhism I've met a mixture of people who do believe there is a god (and it's not Buddha) but of course they have a very different way of going about showing respect to him/her. For the most part though I think Buddhists take an atheist or agnostic approach.

but within Buddhism there are numerous sects and sub-sects. Buddhist traditions accept "re-birth" though Tibetan Buddhism, in particular, calls it "re-incarnation." There is a difference. Most Buddhists do not accept the concept of a permanent "soul" which, as a solid entity, continues on and on UNCHANGED and SOLID throughout all eternity.

Most Buddhists believe that re-birth occurs as a result of one's karma -- that it is, in fact, one's actual karma that is being "re-born" as opposed to a "soul".

Tibetan Buddhists do differ somewhat from most other Buddhists in that they do use the term "re-incarnation" (as the D.L. is a re-incarnation.)

As to Buddhism being a philosophy or a religion, I would say it can be a philosophy for some -- if studied abstractly -- but Buddhism is by far a religion and a very practicable one. Wasn't trying to ding you, just wanted to share some thoughts.

Atheists do not hold any particular philosophy as a group. We are all individuals and there is no dogma or doctrine to adhere to. Buddhist philosophy is non-theistic and many Buddhists are considered atheists.

The underpinings of atheism are reason and logic rather than faith and fear.(as in some world views)

Atheism: There is no God.

Agnosticism: I don't know if there is a God or not.

Deism: There is a God, but I don't know what form he/she/it takes.

since it's not an organized religion or movement and therefore has no philosophy or dogma, other than a lack of belief in a god or gods (by definition).

There are various free-thought and skeptical organizations that advocate atheism but none of them represent it. If they do have a doctrine it's simply the doctrine of that group and happens to include atheism. Most atheists don't belong to any such organization and if he/she has any beliefs about these things they are his personal beliefs arrived at for his own reasons.

atheism as a philosophy, movement, way of thought

Well, atheism isn't any of those things. An atheist simply says that, without evidence, a god or gods cannot not exist. It's not a way of thought like an organized religion. There is no leader of atheism, no "church," no centralized authority. From the word's roots"

a : the absence of
theism: religion, gods

atheism: the absence of gods or religion

what credence does atheism give to buddhist or taoist teachings?

Well, personally, none. I value buddhist and taoist teachings as a philosophy, but I part ways when they speak of deifying the Buddha, reincarnation, etc. I don't buy any of the magic stuff. I've found that Buddhist teachings are the least absurd compared to other religions, and it seems that Buddhist began as more of a philosophy. I can't reconcile reason with things like reincarnation, though.

I know atheism does not believe in a antropomorhized version of God, but what about the idea that God is pure consciousness, total being and that we are not really separate from that energy and awareness?

Like I said above, "atheism" doesn't say anything about the things you mentioned. Each atheist probably has a separate answer. For me, at least, I require evidence for extraordinary claims like that. Without evidence of a deity, I must, as a reasonable person, deny the existence of these fantastic claims.

That often ironic misapplication of probability? Is there a stance on the existence of Luck?

There is no evidence that "luck" is anything other than an inferential phenomenon with no basis in reality external to perception.

Similarly, there is no evidence that "consciousness" or "the mind" or "the soul" exists separate from the neurological functioning of the brain.

There is, additionally, no evidence that any supernatural phenomenon exists in defiance of a natural, non-supernatural explanation for it. "Supernatural" includes ghosts, gods, tarot cards, and a multi-billion dollar "alternative" medicine industry, among other things.

It's just a term for not believing in gods. "Not believing in gods" doesn't "give credence" to anything, one way or another - just like not believing in Santa doesn't give credence to other concepts one way or another.


Personally, the idea that atheists conceive of God as _______________ (fill in the blank) strikes me as a little bit silly.

I don't think either Buddhism or taoism is inconsistent with atheism.

I don't know what "pure consciousness" or "total being" means, really. But that's just me.

regardless of if they are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Shinto, or any other philosophical/theological origin. I have to include God as pure consciousness, too.

Atheism is just that, lack of theism.

I find that many theists have funny beliefs about atheism. I often have people actually apologizing to me when I tell them I'm an atheist. Like, "I'm sorry you're going to Hell." It's very clear that they do not understand what atheism is about; it's about nothing.

believe in the supernatural.

is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. Saying "atheism teaches" or "atheists believe" is off track as is.

The idea that god would be "consciousness" or "being" does not make sense to me, since that would mean god encompasses inanimate objects such as rocks and stars which have no brains. So how could they be conscious?

There is no evidence that non-living things are aware of themselves.

I think people want to put a god somewhere because they don't like the idea of being alone and not having perfect justice somewhere in the universe. When they start the chain of thought, "I don't know where something came from" and move to "God made it," they are essentially turning 'god' into another way to say, "I don't know."

This God is everywhere idea is a bit confused. What is God anyway? The idea of God has undergone quite a change since the personal God in the sky of ancient religions. But I think this quote sums up my idea of God. ;)

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself."
- Peter O'Toole

Like you say, people "don't like the idea of being alone", and don't like the idea of dying alone either, so the idea of God(s) and an afterlife were created.

there is nothing to discuss.

religions are the constructs.

People are atheists for various reasons. Whatever reasons the individual chooses must, by definition, add up to "no gods" somehow. For my part, I disbelieve in any gods for the simple reason that there is absolutely no credible evidence that points at the existence of any gods. I dismiss the Loch Ness Monster, alien visitations, and a host of other extraordinary ideas for the same reason.

The idea that "God is pure consciousness" is really propositionally vacuous. IOW, there is no way we can distinguish between a universe WITH such a god and one without. Therefore, we can dismiss such a god on the basis of its being unnecessary to explain what we observe around us.

:thumbsup:

:)

My question is what credence does atheism give to buddhist or taoist teachings?

I give Buddhist and Taoist teachings the same credence I give to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, et al. As an atheist, however, I do not needlessly burden myself with a totem they ultimately represent, merely utilize the wisdom in each as I find it. Which is to say, I respect them as valid belief sets and believe that they are helpful in guiding their believers through life. However, as an example, I do not bother myself with the details which cause the Theravadins and Mahayana-ns to disagree with each other about the nature of the Buddha's teachings. Nor am I concerned, as the Jews and the Christians are, about whether or not Jesus Christ was the messiah. Instead I view the Buddha as I view Jesus and Mohamed: teachers who have wisdom to offer me about the nature of man, the universe and of Good and Evil. I do not believe in the cycle of births and deaths which lead to more enlightened beings as the Buddhists do. Nor, as the other major religions believe, that there is some posthumous adjudication. For me, there is only an end to my perception of self when I pass on. I do believe, for instance, my atoms will discorporate and reform as other beings and things but there is no "footprint" that I leave on their tiny potentials as they become something else nor do I believe there is a greater goal for them.

What does atheism say about eastern concepts such as interdependence or the Godhead consciousness, our ground of being.

I believe that consciousness and self-awareness are illusions, an explanation for a clockwork so complex it can only be comfortably described by the clockwork itself as being unique, divine. I believe that all living things experience a level of self-awareness as real or true as my own. However the self-awareness of a tomato plant, for instance, is incomprehensible to me. No more or less important than my own. I believe that non-living things also have a consciousness, though so distant from my own perceptual understanding of the world as to be, again, incomprehensible. Theirs is what I think of as a crystalline consciousness, dictated directly by the raw forces of nature such as electromagnetism, gravity, etc. I attempt to remain humble enough to understand that while I perceive that I, unlike a rock, am free to do what I choose, there are still forces so complex and subtle at the abstracted level in which I exist which bind us both to an ultimate, structured framework. Because of these conclusions you might say that I either believe that there is no Godhead consciousness or that the Godhead consciousness is everywhere and everything. That is a matter of perspective, I suppose.

I know atheism does not believe in a antropomorhized version of God, but what about the idea that God is pure consciousness, total being and that we are not really separate from that energy and awareness?

Continuing from my previous answer I believe that all things share the same pieces and so are related, no matter how complex or simple they are. In this way all things are, essentially, extensions of the energy which formed the matter of which they are made. I believe that we, every living and inanimate thing from the pencil on your desk to all the planets and galaxies in the universe are metaphorical tendrils extending from the energy which coalesced them. It is that energy that you would most likely, if not an atheist, define as the supreme being, true enlightenment, what-have-you.

There is one question which you did not ask which my answers may beg: Why be concerned with Good and Evil if I believe the above? I am a hopeless romantic and cannot help but root for what I believe is right and just in this world. The sum of my experiences so far have formed a me that believes in bringing my interpretation of Goodness and Love into the world. I find Love and Goodness beautiful and am so constructed as to create or endeavor toward things which I perceive to please me.

They say that God is all things to all men and atheism is no different. This is my particular brand of it.

PB

I do not believe in the existance of any supernatural agent; all observable phenomena have naturalistic or matereialistic explanations. Its nothing but a refusal to believe in magic and fairy tales. IMHO thestic religion is pretty much comprised of magic, fairy tales and wishful thinking.

Yeah, what an image! It's my obnoxious way of grabbing attention by pointing out the obvious: In many ways, not embracing the mainstream religion of one's society is a form of rebellion. It can be adolescent and showy, or Principled and Conscientious. But anyone who takes the time to cultivate a jaunty mohawk and color it a festive shade of violet shouldn't have it rejected, either.

A lot of people who are atheists, agnostics, theists, pantheists, pottheists, deists, Cathaholics, Urinitarians, Triumphalists ("To poop on!"), snake-handlers, Satanists, attorneys, acid-droppers, pagans, Wiccans, Asatrúvians, Gaians, Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Scientosophists, Thelemists, Jehovah-in-Drag devotees ("Goddess bless you! -- here's a tissue.") and even Dark Mages of the Elder Froon of P'on-Far'r are mainly rejecting our society's dominant religion for reasons NOT related to the religion. That is, they reject Christianity because of the flood of bullshit issuing from Christendom, the Bible, and the many patently evil religious leaders who presume to speak for Jesus Christ. They reject JC and the Bible (both Testaments) because they are repulsed by the whole "package".

This isn't to say that their rejection is unfounded, insincere, bogus, etc. In most cases, it has more value than their previous exposure to Christianity, since it's self-chosen and not imposed. It might even lead them back to the bosom of the Lord (the real Lord, the one who drinks Coke, not Pepsi). Sure, in some cases, it's a fashion statement, but even there, religio-fashionistas have almost always given more thought to God and Man than most people who Worship At The Church Of Their Choice™.

My only major complaint with adoxy, heterodoxy, idiodoxy, hixidoxy, and ironodoxy is that about half the people involved in Asatrú are neo-Nazis, which makes the other, decent, half of the Asatrúvians look bad. (I also have some concerns about mercury in imported purple hair dye, but that's just my altruism showing.)

And yet, Jesus himself rejected the shitflood, and preached as much. The essential message is "You can stop worrying now; everybody's going to Heaven. And while you're at it, be nice to each other. Come on now, at least try." -- but my own take on the Gospel is Universalist.

I, personally, reject the very process of belief. I like Jesus' philosophy, there are a number of things I think are true but don't "believe in", and will consider theology in any way I wish. After all, what is theology other than one's personal ideas about the transcendent? In spite of the messages of the televangelists, I don't think God wants us to be a bunch of mindless ass-kissers running around killing each other over issues of which buttock to smooch and with how much enthusiasm. Better atheism with ethics than unthinking, unfeeling faith.

Better anything than unthinking, unfeeling faith.

And, of course, I could be wrong about any of this, or all of it.

--p!

I thought your post was interesting and quite perceptive on the whole, but there is one statement that you made that I feel requires a response. You stated that Jesus' "essential message" was



With all respect, I cannot see how you would come to the conclusion that Jesus' essential message was that everyone would be going to Heaven. Repeatedly, He said quite the contrary. For example:



This is not really on the topic of the original post, and I do not want to hijack the thread, but I felt a need to respond to this particular statement of yours, which is so different from my understanding of Jesus' message.

Jesus isn't real, so misconstruing what he didn't say is irrelevant.

Your commentary is so well-reasoned and convincing, you have shaken my faith!!!
:sarcasm:

I guess you are a "Bright!" Does that make me a "Dull" or a "Dim"?

He never wrote anything down himself. All we have is the words of people who wrote them a few decades after his supposed death, and none of those authors were first-hand eyewitnesses. The oldest texts we have are Paul's writings, and Paul never met Jesus in person. The gospels were all written by men other than the names the books bear.

So your commentary is just as well-reasoned and convincing as the commentary you are mocking.

...are the only group that defines themselves by what they aren't.

The closest way I can explain it is this way: if most people served in the military at some point, then being a service member or veteran would be the default, and we would instead define people by which branch they served in. Are you Air Force, Marines, Army, Navy, or Coast Guard? There would also be a specific term for those who never served, but they would be considered the exception. Just as these non-veterans would not be able to speak as to which branch of service they were in, so atheists are not able to speak as to what they, as a group, believe. The only thing that we have in common is that we have no religion.

It is my opinion that if you are a Buddhist who does not believe in gods, you are not an atheist; you're a Buddhist. If you're a Christian who believes that the Bible is 100% allegorical and that Jesus never existed, then I don't think you're really an atheist, either. You still define with a religion, even if it's only on a philosophical level. That's just my opinion though, and I certainly don't speak for all other atheists (being the ecclectic group that we are).

You won't get anything out of atheism, except for the satisfaction that you have come to terms with reality.

If you are looking for something, like a reassurance, or the new fad, atheism is as far from these things as you can possibly get. Atheists are not united in any way except for their recognition of the obvious, and acceptance of it.

From your original post, I don't think atheism is for you, at least not at this time. Its a personal journey, not a group to join. There are no rules in any regard, so you can do what you want, or call yourself an atheist if you really aren't, and nobody will care.

That almost sounds like a religion to me.

We all swim as best we can through the chaos of life. "Coming to terms" with something implies some sort of negotiation and I do not believe one negotiates with reality any more than some theist might negotiate with their All-Knowing and Perfect God.

In both theism and atheism it is a matter of finding a foundation of peace within one's self. From this foundation one may find the stregnth to accomplish good and beautiful things that might otherwise be beyond one's will.

"Acceptance of" things you cannot cannot change is a common theme within and without religion.

God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I Cannot change…
Courage to change the things I can
And Wisdom to know the difference…

You can rewrite this as you please, as many people throughout the ages have.

"Acceptance of" things you cannot cannot change is a common theme within and without religion.

Yeah? Well...

"Ritual" figures into a lot of religions, so the ritual of my twice-daily commute must be a religion.

"Traditional observances" figure into a lot of religions, so my observation of the tradition of not running over pedestrians with my car must be a religion.

"Specialized consumption of foods" figures into many religions, so my choice to cook meat before eating it must be a religion.

In your current post, at least, you're going out of your way to dilute the definition of "religion" so thinly that it can include pretty much any action consciously performed. In doing so, you assume your conclusion (ie., "religion is anything that fits the description of religion") and you also strip the term "religion" of whatever value it may have had.

I'd also suggest that your reading of "coming to terms" borders on deliberate equivocation. It was clearly meant as being resigned to the way things are, rather than some metaphysical altering of (or negotiation with) the fundamental nature of the universe. Rather than being a rewrite of the homily you cite, it's more an acknowledgement that "que sera sera."

Atheism is not a religion, just as the lack-of-measles is not a disease. Atheists can't be neatly encapsulated as a group but they do not, in general, believe in any diffuse god-consciousness either.

That's good.

Mind if I use it?

Our anti-commuting is very deliberate, and very rational.

How many decisions do you make every day that have no basis in science or even rational thought? Most of them, I would guess.

I'm certain you live by some ethic, probably some sort of humanism, and this has very little to do with your declared atheism. Many of the traditions of this humanism were probably worked out by religious people, many of them people who were rejecting the religious ethic of their time for something better.

Absent some ill-defined deity as a supposed moral paragon for a guide, one falls back upon aesthetics and pragmatism, but so what?

Perhaps I'm not understanding you. You seem to be asserting that if some aspect of my life is not informed/governed by my atheism, then that aspect is a form of religious observance, or at least that it adheres to notions put forth by religious people. But again, so what? That doesn't mean that these aspects of my life are religious in nature, which I took to be your original point (that "coming to terms" with reality is a religious practice).

....That's religion now??? Sheesh.

Properly applied, "atheism" means only a rejection of "god" however "god" might be defined. Early Christians were classed as atheists, for example, because they rejected the gods of the Roman state. At its most extreme, atheism becomes a theological assertion: "There are no gods." Atheism has nothing to say on Buddhism, Taoism or any other philosophy-of-life.

As a result, I would say that atheists are freeer that theists to explore other philosophies. You will find atheists who are strict materialists; you will also find atheists who are Buddhists, Taoists and followers of Confucius, as none of these systems requires a belief in deity. In Western cultures, a great many atheists consider themselves to be Humanists: most definitions of Humanism (and there are many: http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm) emphasize a rejection of supernaturalism while embracing life, valuing human accomplishments and emphasizing the need to care for one another. What I find interesting about Humanism is that, as a philosophy of life, it attracts not only atheists but many believers as well, and many people who can not or will not be placed on either side of the "Does God exist?" debate.

Another Humanist page you might find informative includes the three Humanist Manifestos (published in 1937, 1973 and 2003, respectively) can be found at http://www.gregory-gadow.info/humanism/default.asp

I don't make shit up to explain what I don't know.
And I don't believe in any one else's made up shit either.

If I don't know the answer, either I will with time and/or death, or I will never know. I will not/CAN NOT believe without evidence.

And I don't understand those who do. But that doesn't mean I don't like them.

:evilgrin:

Non-Voices in my head. Saying NOTHING!
Damn my Bi-Cameral Mind

:rofl:

Believe what you like, I, for one, will not take offense, and hope you will not be offended by my lack of belief. Atheism is not a combative world view, live and let live. However, after you have spent some time on this board you may think otherwise. Atheists are not passive either, we speak out when confronted, especially against the contemporary "christian agenda."

The "christian agenda," which I will define as an agenda put forth by the religious elite, the Pat Robertsons, Dr Dobsons, etc which seeks to establish America as a theocratic nation state, with all other members given a second class status. Not all christians subscribe to the agenda, in fact, many liberal christians are vehemently opposed.

If you seek a spiritual view of Buddhism or Taoism you will not find it with this atheist, I am lacking in spirituality. At least that is my wife's conclusion, who is asian and taoist, at least she thinks she is. Taoist that is, she is correct about her asianness ;). In my wife, I see an atheist yet to be discovered, she probably sees a very resistant Taoist living in denial.

We have peace, for the most part, and atheists and other religions can live in peace, provided that neither side chooses to have an "agenda," or by neglecting the ideal, an agenda disputed by no more than a heated battle over a good chardonnay.

Peace.............:evilgrin: