Are there any Atheists that meditate?

[Michael Colton]

I fully understand how you feel honestly. My biggest gripe as of now are atheists who claim to be "spiritual" and love this New Thought/New Age silliness. I just do not understand it or why they wish to be apart of it.
This is why I do not tell other atheists I meditate since they will immediately assume I am "spiritual".

I love reading into religious text and especially Hindu and Sufi stuff but I just rip out the religious garbage

Indeed, I also find the New Age trend with atheists to be utterly mind-boggling and not a little embarrassing.

I also read various religious texts and study the associated religions, but it is purely for the sake of knowing more about them.

Don't assume religion implies belief in God or in "Spirituality", Philotech.

It is a pet belief of mine that such beliefs are instead usually obstacles to religious practice.

This is an example of the nonsensical to me. If it did not have spirituality it would not be religious practice. It would just be some cultural tradition. If it is religious it by definition has something spiritual or supernatural attached to it.

 

[LuisDantas]

I actually think religion can be very beneficial if every last single shred of the superstition, theistic and metaphysical baggage was dropped. They would become ethical philosophies if anything.
This is why I love philosophy I my add

I guess my only disagreement is that we shouldn't refrain from calling them religions when they do that.

 

[Michael Colton]

I actually think religion can be very beneficial if every last single shred of the superstition, theistic and metaphysical baggage was dropped. They would become ethical philosophies if anything.
This is why I love philosophy I my add

Yes, they would become something else - meaning, no longer religions. By definition they have to involve the spiritual or supernatural, otherwise they are no longer religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, they would become something else - meaning, no longer religions. By definition they have to involve the spiritual or supernatural, otherwise they are no longer religions.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "spiritual".

 

[Michael Colton]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "spiritual".

Of or relating to the supernatural or supernatural belief. Religion by definition relates to the supernatural. To say that we should continue to call them religions if the superstition or supernatural is removed is to say that we should redefine the term to be pointless. If you were to remove the supernatural part of the term 'religion,' then it becomes synonymous with a host of other terms such as worldviews, philosophies, traditions, etc. The supernatural part of the definition is the entire purpose of the term 'religion' existing in the first place. Without it, there is no reason for the word to even exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of or relating to the supernatural or supernatural belief. Religion by definition relates to the supernatural.

I don't think that is actually true. Taoism, for one, does not have to be taken that way. Nor Shinto, Buddhism, or even Judaism, really.

Actually, I can't think of a single religion that benefits from lending importance to supernatural beliefs, although there are a fair many that need them to survive.

To say that we should continue to call them religions if the superstition or supernatural is removed is to say that we should redefine the term to be pointless.

I beg to differ. The point of religions is not the supernatural, at least when they are healthy. It is rather the development of ethical values, behavior and doctrine, and of a sense of community.

If you were to remove the supernatural part of the term 'religion,' then it becomes synonymous with a host of other terms such as worldviews, philosophies, traditions, etc.

Maybe you can give me some examples? Perhaps a few of them are indeed religions even if not usually acknowledged as such.

The supernatural part of the definition is the entire purpose of the term 'religion' existing in the first place. Without it, there is no reason for the word to even exist.

I don't see why.

 

[Michael Colton]

I beg to differ. The point of religions is not the supernatural, at least when they are healthy. It is rather the development of ethical values, behavior and doctrine, and of a sense of community.

I was not talking about the point of religions but the point of the word 'religion,' as in, what it means and why it is used. This is why you will hear people distinguish between Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist religion - they are distinguished by the supernatural elements of the latter.

The only way around this is to quite literally throw out the meaning of the word 'religion' and replace it with one you prefer. I am sorry, but there is no way to respond to that without being flippant and moving on.

 

[LuisDantas]

I was not talking about the point of religions but the point of the word 'religion,' as in, what it means and why it is used. This is why you will hear people distinguish between Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist religion - they are distinguished by the supernatural elements of the latter.

Such use is a mistake, IMO. It creates an artificial distinction and confuses the relevant issues.

The only way around this is to quite literally throw out the meaning of the word 'religion' and replace it with one you prefer. I am sorry, but there is no way to respond to that without being flippant and moving on.

I truly do not understand what you mean here.

 

[Michael Colton]

Such use is a mistake

It is not a 'use' of the word. It is the meaning of the word. Just as two plus two equals four and up is not down, the definition of what is a religion contains the supernatural. To remove the supernatural from a religion is to render it no longer a religion. It is quite literally the very definition of the word.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not a 'use' of the word. It is the meaning of the word. Just as two plus two equals four and up is not down, the definition of what is a religion contains the supernatural. To remove the supernatural from a religion is to render it no longer a religion. It is quite literally the very definition of the word.

No, it is not. I don't know why you think so. Quite a lot of relevant uses of the word ignore and in fact benefit from letting go of any supernatural beliefs.

On occasion, it is even utterly impossible to impose supernaturalism on religious practice.

Supernaturalism may often plague religion, but it is not necessary - or even desirable - for religion.

 

[Michael Colton]

No, it is not. I don't know why you think so. Quite a lot of relevant uses of the word ignore and in fact benefit from letting go of any supernatural beliefs.

On occasion, it is even utterly impossible to impose supernaturalism on religious practice.

Supernaturalism may often plague religion, but it is not necessary - or even desirable - for religion.

And this is why I suggested moving on is the best course of action, because there really is no place to go from here.

 

[LuisDantas]

And this is why I suggested moving on is the best course of action, because there really is no place to go from here.

Sorry, no can do. This is an important matter and I insist on clarifying it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yes, they would become something else - meaning, no longer religions. By definition they have to involve the spiritual or supernatural, otherwise they are no longer religions.

Even Buddhism is a religion although it does not accept a god. Buddhists still believe in samsara and karma which are very supernatural.
A religions only distinction from an ordinary philosophy is that they are drenched in ritual, culture and supernaturalism. Religion unlike philosophy is about establishing a praxis.
Then again, ritual and culture are not exclusive components of religions as they are apart of politics as well. Philosophy is not a science and is just a step up from religion for the most part. It would be best if religions could just upgrade themselves to philosophies

 

[LuisDantas]

Even Buddhism is a religion although it does not accept a god.

It actually does. It has created a few, even. They just aren't particularly central, and certainly aren't the reason for being of the Dharma.

Buddhists still believe in samsara and karma which are very supernatural.

Karma isn't even remotely supernatural, although some readings of it might well be.

Samsara... quite frankly, Samsara is something of an enigma. I can't tell you whether it is supernatural because I haven't figure it out.

A religions only distinction from an ordinary philosophy is that they are drenched in ritual, culture and supernaturalism. Religion unlike philosophy is about establishing a praxis.

Why do you feel it has to involve the supernatural?

Then again, ritual and culture are not exclusive components of religions as they are apart of politics as well. Philosophy is not a science and is just a step up from religion for the most part. It would be best if religions could just upgrade themselves to philosophies

The way you are seeing it, this particular meaning of "philosophy" is indeed a goal that all religions should aim for.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It actually does. It has created a few, even. They just aren't particularly central, and certainly aren't the reason for being of the Dharma.

Gods have been added to Buddhism but by no means is theism a tenet of Buddhism or advised by Siddhartha Gautama.

Karma isn't even remotely supernatural, although some readings of it might well be.

Wrong. Traditional karma is very supernatural and is considered to be a cosmic law. I do not quote Hindu or Buddhist texts well at all but I k now enough about them to know that Karma does not mean "you get what you give". It is a cosmic balance and a very supernatural one that is said to pervade time itself.
I have encountered no definition in Hindu or Buddhist texts that does not describe it as anything less than supernatural.

Samsara... quite frankly, Samsara is something of an enigma. I can't tell you whether it is supernatural because I haven't figure it out.

It is supernatural since it comes to the conclusion the mind is a metaphysical entity which is placed amongst the world to be placed in a vessel after death.
Much like Sufis and they notion of the Ruh.

Why do you feel it has to involve the supernatural?

The only clear distinction of religions from philosophies is their mandate for the supernatural, myth and ritual. The supernatural being the biggest of them.
It is the only clear way I can distinguish them. It is not perfect though since since philosophy can dive into subjects of the supernatural, this is where metaphysics come into play.

The way you are seeing it, this particular meaning of "philosophy" is indeed a goal that all religions should aim for.

I hope so.

...Mew!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've meditated, with varying degrees of regularity, for about 20 years. And, in fact, most of the people I've known who have meditated to any serious degree, have been atheists.

Personally, I've found it to be a relaxing and centering practice physically, psychologically, and emotionally. I haven't found anything mystical about it, but it has contributed to my interest in understanding and exploring the various psychological and neurological states that arise during meditation.

It seems to me to be like anything else, in that some people feel the need to attach some type of mystical or spiritual significance to things they experience, while others don't.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I've meditated, with varying degrees of regularity, for about 20 years. And, in fact, most of the people I've known who have meditated to any serious degree, have been atheists.

Personally, I've found it to be a relaxing and centering practice physically, psychologically, and emotionally. I haven't found anything mystical about it, but it has contributed to my interest in understanding and exploring the various psychological and neurological states that arise during meditation.

It seems to me to be like anything else, in that some people feel the need to attach some type of mystical or spiritual significance to things they experience, while others don't.

To be honest I find it very hard to rationalize how a theist can relate meditation to a divine being. Meditation seems like such an individualistic act, so ruleless and self focused.

 

[LuisDantas]

Gods have been added to Buddhism but by no means is theism a tenet of Buddhism or advised by Siddhartha Gautama.

Of course not.

Wrong. Traditional karma is very supernatural and is considered to be a cosmic law.

If it is a cosmic law, can it be supernatural?

I do not quote Hindu or Buddhist texts well at all but I k now enough about them to know that Karma does not mean "you get what you give". It is a cosmic balance and a very supernatural one that is said to pervade time itself.

Well, that is certainly not my take, nor do I remember any of by Dharma teachers using such supernatural trappings.

I have encountered no definition in Hindu or Buddhist texts that does not describe it as anything less than supernatural.

I don't know what to say beyond that apparently we do not share many sources, or at least readings of same.

It is supernatural since it comes to the conclusion the mind is a metaphysical entity which is placed amongst the world to be placed in a vessel after death. Much like Sufis and they notion of the Ruh.

Hinduism (and not even all schools) does hold such a notion by way of the concept of "Atman". Buddhism specifically denies it by way of "anatta" and of its other core concepts (Anicca, Interdependent Origination).

The only clear distinction of religions from philosophies is their mandate for the supernatural, myth and ritual. The supernatural being the biggest of them.

That is an odd distinction, IMO. Supernaturalism is much more like a disease or a temptation that religion has to watch for than an actual attribute of it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Of course not.




If it is a cosmic law, can it be supernatural?

Do you think the cosmos is responsible for our morality and upholds it? By cosmos I mean a pantheistic conception of the cosmos where the gods uphold the cosmic binding law through providence and pantheistic existence.
I do not mean the scientific term of the word cosmos

Well, that is certainly not my take, nor do I remember any of by Dharma teachers using such supernatural trappings.

They are not trappings although they can be interpreted either way but the millenia old assumption is that they are universally binding principles and principles cannot be universally binding unless you use a divine agent.

I don't know what to say beyond that apparently we do not share many sources, or at least readings of same.

Been years since I got involved in Hinduism and Buddhism although I am by no means as familiar with Buddhism as I am with Hinduism. But I know fully well the norm amongst Hindus about Karma and Dharma.

Hinduism (and not even all schools) does hold such a notion by way of the concept of "Atman". Buddhism specifically denies it by way of "anatta" and of its other core concepts (Anicca, Interdependent Origination).

I know this fully well but the non-theistic schools did not set of Hinduism and the norms of Hindu thought.

That is an odd distinction, IMO. Supernaturalism is much more like a disease or a temptation that religion has to watch for than an actual attribute of it.

This is the only clear distinction I can make. Name me some philosophical ritualism and the degree of it along with the importance of mythology in philosophy.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know this fully well but the non-theistic schools did not set of Hinduism and the norms of Hindu thought.

Are you implying that the theistic schools did? I am not sure that follows.