Atheists - which God don't you believe in?

[Opethian]

I don't believe in all of those other gods because none of them touched me.

How do you know which god touched you? Did he leave a fingerprint?

 

[d.]

What about Taoism, is it theistic? It recognises a divine force of a sort, but does not anthropomorphosise (is this a word i'm a bit tired?) that force.

nope, it doesn't involve any 'hocus-pocus' and therefore there's no conflict with atheism, in fact i still call myself atheist in some contexts. because :

I do not believe in any supreme supernatural being alleged to have created and/or to be in control of the universe. I do not believe in the soul, reincarnation or any form of life after death.

Most people so far have said that they either lost faith in Christianity, or have dabbled in Christianity at some point before becoming atheist.
Is it just the Judeo-Christian view of God that people, quite rightly IMO, cannot reconcile with their own innate sense of logic and so become atheist?
Do some people miss out on the benefits of eastern philosophies like Buddhism and Taoism because they simply lump them together with the God they rejected?

in some cases, sure. in other cases, probably not. i do think it happens that people take for granted that no religion is compatible with a scientific or 'modern' worldview. which simply isn't true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've come to rather dislike the term "atheism", not because it instantly triggers one of those incessant discussions on 'strong' versus 'weak', but because it focuses the discussion on Diety. The more fundamental divide is that of naturalism versus appeals to the supernatural.

 

[Sunstone]

I've come to rather dislike the term "atheism", not because it instantly triggers one of those incessant discussions on 'strong' versus 'weak', but because it focuses the discussion on Diety. The more fundamental divide is that of naturalism versus appeals to the supernatural.

The naturalism/supernaturalism divide certainly raises more interesting, better framed, and reasonable questions, IMHO.

As well, it tends to avoid the endless debates over the nature of deity and whose god(s) we're talking about, that infest the theist/atheist divide.

Lastly, the naturalism/supernaturalism divide focuses the conversation on an area of philosophy that is very active these days and lively. But the theist/atheist divide focuses the discusion on the evolutionary fossils of philosophical thought.

I myself am still wrestling with the question of whether scientific naturalism in any reasonable view of it entails, requires, or even implies philosophical naturalism. Such is the stubborn slowness of my brain when deciding such issues.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Reading one of robtex's posts in another thread got me thinking.

To the atheists on the forum, have you always been atheist or have you 'converted' from some form of theism?

If you have 'converted', was it specifically issues with the God(s) of your old religion that you had a problem with?

Have you/did you explore alternative religions such as Buddhism or Taoism before opting for complete atheism? If so, what about these religions did not appeal to you?

I grew up in a Christian Church. Very Southern, very Protestant. To be honest, I don't know that I am a "converted" athiest, because I never could quite buy into what I was being told 3 times a week in Church. I was a very precocious youth, and could not quite rationalize the literal translation of the Bible with such things as Dinosaurs, etc. . . . even as a very small child.

I prayed constantly as a kid, tho it seemed like my prayers were answered rarely, if ever, and no more often than pure chance would dictate (a trend I have noticed for other pray-ers too) and there was something quite disconcerting about hearing the virtues of the 10 comandments, then seeing and hearing my mother talk on the phone, saying things I knew not to be true. But I kept praying, and I kept searching, hoping I could reconcile what I was being told in Church with what I was learning to be true about the world around me.

This became more and more difficult, the harder I tried, and the more I tried to learn in an effort to find God, the more I realized that there was no more reason to believe in an Abrahamic God than there was to beleive in any of the myriad of other gods we know to be false, such as Zeuss, Ra, etc. . . .

And in answer to the final question, I am actually reading "An Introduction to Zen Buddhism" by Jean Smith at the moment, and am strongly considering becoming Buddhist. I have already began doing zazen, and have noticed a positive effect. I am very attracted to Buddhism, and am eager to learn more about it. At least it will give me something to respond when someone asks me what my religion is, and it doesn't require me to beleive in otherworldy beings, nor does it require any worship, and most importantly, it doesn't require me to check my intellect or common sense at the door.

B.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I myself am still wrestling with the question of whether scientific naturalism in any reasonable view of it entails, requires, or even implies philosophical naturalism. Such is the stubborn slowness of my brain when deciding such issues.

Slow brains are often best.

Let me know what you think of Steven D. Schafersman's NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY ...

 

[Quiddity]

Slow brains are often best.

Let me know what you think of Steven D. Schafersman's NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY ...

Of course he does.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Slow brains are often best. Let me know what you think of Steven D. Schafersman's NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY ...

Of course he does.

Your statement is incoherent.

 

[Sunstone]

...most importantly, it doesn't require me to check my intellect or common sense at the door.

And yet you still call Buddhism a "fun" religion. Why?

 

[Sunstone]

Let me know what you think of Steven D. Schafersman's NATURALISM IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF SCIENCE AND CRITICAL INQUIRY ...

Thanks, Jay! I'll check it out and let you know whatever I can make of it.

 

[Ceridwen018]

I used to be Catholic. Although Catholicism isn't exactly one of those, "warm and fuzzy," religions, that's not why I gave up on god. I gave up on god much in the same fashion as I gave up on Santa Clause many years back--it just didn't make any gosh darned sense.

 

[Quiddity]

Your statement is incoherent.

Nope....

 

[Quiddity]

I used to be Catholic. Although Catholicism isn't exactly one of those, "warm and fuzzy," religions, that's not why I gave up on god. I gave up on god much in the same fashion as I gave up on Santa Clause many years back--it just didn't make any gosh darned sense.

That explains volumes.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Hey c'mon Victor you still believe in the Easter Bunny in front of little kids right? *cheeky grin* :angel2:

 

[Cuthberta]

What if you are not given the option of believing in the Sacred Feminine?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

And yet you still call Buddhism a "fun" religion. Why?

Sun,

I don't recall saying, or thinking that Buddhism is a "fun" religion. I do find the meditation enjoyable, but am not sure to what you refer in your quote above. If you would be so kind as to point out the context to which you reply, I will be happy to respond more fully.

I think it is one of the more beneficial, and least harmful religions, in the sense that there is not so much of an us vs. them mentality as you get in the monotheistic traditions, but beyond that, I am not sure where you are going with the question.

B.

 

[bunny1ohio]

What if you are not given the option of believing in the Sacred Feminine?

Given by whom? Who can dictate what you think or feel? If you even know about Sacred Feminine, then nobody can take that from you no matter what you may have to say to people's faces to survive (in some places). You have an inherent right as a human being to worship how you see fit, but under some extreme circumstances you may have to "conform" to a "religious norm"... in those instances I would say again... what you believe and feel are what matter.

 

[MaddLlama]

I was raised Catholic, and then later on was Pagan until I realized I thought it was all a little silly and not really reconcileable with science. I don't believe science is infallible, but to me it offers more than religion.

To me I personally see practices like Taoism and Buddhism more as philosophies than religions. Philosophy is great =)

 

[St0ne]

Definately it's the christian god I don't believe in for many reasons but my reasoning also eliminates other gods. I haven't looked at many other religions as closely but I find Buddhism to be much more truthful to the real world.

 

[Halcyon]

Definately it's the christian god I don't believe in for many reasons but my reasoning also eliminates other gods. I haven't looked at many other religions as closely but I find Buddhism to be much more truthful to the real world.

Interesting. What are your views on the Buddhist Gods St0ne, as in the God realm?

What is your opinion of Pure Land Buddhism?