Thank you atheists...

[sealchan]

No. Atheist (as myself) dont believe in deities. Tao is "just is". Buddha-nature is the potiential in anyone to be enlightened.

Atheist can be Taoist. Tao isnt a deity. Buddha nature isnt either.

The Taoist and Buddhist traditions often posit various deities and individuals with supernatural powers. I think that before laying claim to such things as within the realm of acceptible atheism, you might want to check on that more closely!

It would be a shame if an atheist were a closet believer! ;-)

 

[sealchan]

So I've noticed. Being neither this or that gives rise to interesting emotional reactions sometimes.


I'm not sure that anyone can experience it, but I agree with the other parts of your post.

Well, at least, I can't say what the pre-qualifications would be for deciding who could or would.

 

[Vouthon]

Indeed as is written in the Lao-tze:

However the similarity between a mystic's God and the Tao are much closer than creator Gods or antropomorphic deities.

Catholic and other Christian mystics often express similar ideas:

"...In order to attain perfect union, we must free ourselves of God...The common belief about God, that He is a great Taskmaster, whose function is to reward or punish, is cast out by perfect love; and in this sense the spiritual man does divest himself of God as conceived of by most people.

The intellectual 'where' is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it. In this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits. No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it..."

- Blessed Henry Suso (c. 1296-1366), German Catholic mystic & Dominican priest ​

....but they also emphasize that human speech, an evolutionary adaption, isn't really up to the task of adequately conveying the direct experience of it i.e.

"Behold! by each of these images, I show forth to God-seeing men their being and their exercise, but none else can understand them. For the contemplative life cannot be taught. But where the Eternal Truth reveals Itself within the spirit all that is needful is taught and learnt......"

- Blessed John of Ruysbroeck (1293 - 1381), The Sparkling Stone

​

From, "Life and Doctrine of Saint Catherine of Genoa (1447 - 1510)" by CHRISTIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION PUBLISHING CO:

I see without eyes, and I hear without ears. I feel without feeling and taste without tasting. I know neither form nor measure; for without seeing I yet behold an operation so divine that the words I first used, perfection, purity, and the like, seem to me now mere lies in the presence of truth...

I shall never rest until I am hidden and enclosed in that divine heart wherein all created forms are lost, and, so lost, remain thereafter all divine

This is the beatitude that the blessed might have, and yet they have it not, except in so far as they are dead to themselves and absorbed in God. They have it not in so far as they remain in themselves and can say: `I am blessed.'

Words are wholly inadequate to express my meaning, and I reproach myself for using them. I would that every one could understand me, and I am sure that if I could breathe on creatures, the fire of love burning within me would inflame them all with divine desire. O thing most marvelous!

​

Hence why mystics of various traditions often make recourse to poetry (even if they hadn't been particularly gifted with literary elegance or prowess prior to their mystical experiences): like the Persian ghazal and the epigram or alexandrine couplet among the Europeans, given that these styles lend themselves well to paradox.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Taoist and Buddhist traditions often posit various deities and individuals with supernatural powers. I think that before laying claim to such things as within the realm of acceptible atheism, you might want to check on that more closely!

It would be a shame if an atheist were a closet believer! ;-)

Deities in Buddhism are like humans, they are trying to be enlightened too. What makes them deities is their celestial nature not supernatural or anything you'd think of in relationship with gods. They arent worshiped nor do they lead a path to enlightenment. A Buddhist (some Zen, Kadampa, and in part Nichiren-depends on the lineage) doesnt associate deities in their (my former) worship. Nichiren Shu does, I think. The Veitnamese Zen temple I recieved my Dhamma precepts. Theravada I think does. Couple others depending on how mystic it is and how close it is to Indian cosmology.

You can learn more about Buddhism via the suttas on accesstoinsight.org. There are good monks at suttacentral for theravada practitioners.

It's my faith. I dont know many cultural Buddhists who are atheist. I assume its a American thing. I wasnt raised around any deity concepts: hindu, tao, abrahamic, wiccan, and so forth. Thats why I dont incorporate Buddhist deities. They probably see it like Hindu when it comes to cultural views. By far no where like abrahamic beings at all.

 

[Milton Platt]

Correct. I've not said that it's a middle ground I'm standing on, but further away from both literalist believers and atheists. You believe gods are necessarily supernatural creatures, right? I make no claims as to the nature of God, except that the experience itself has been called God in tradition. Whether it is truly supernatural or not, I believe that issue is something that the literalists and atheists enjoy debating with ones making claims and the others rejecting their validity, to me it doesn't make a difference. So tell me, is it an atheist position?

It all hinges upon whether you believe in a god or not.......

 

[stvdv]

19 jun 2018 stvdv 011 77

It is my observation that those who say they were atheists but now are "believers" really never were atheists.
There could be-perhaps you are-an exception, but
the pattern is for people raised in a religious
setting will fall away from it for a while, to say they are
"atheist" but find they cannot really break free.

That does make sense. It is well known that first 7 years are crucial to make or break someone. Also known that one better not expect the other to change after marriage. They might pretend or even change, but in the end most of them fall back.

Break free from your parents is the key here IMO. Say NO to them on soul level is what makes it difficult.

I was brought up as a Christian. Went to India, met my guru, stayed 10 years. He even insists to stick to your own faith, no need to change. So coming back I went to church 4 years. Loved the singing. BUT the judgmental evangelizing was too much. Even as a child this felt so wrong.

So in my case I never was a real Christian. I love Jesus, not Christianity. But in a way even my parents were against Christianity because of it's narrow mindedness. So that proves Audie's point even more. Funny part is that my parents, now 80, go back more or less to Christianity. They never could say NO to their parents

It's all quite tricky and complicated to find your own way. We are so much indoctrinated as a child. Being aware of this, that might set you free, after working hard on yourself and your "being brainwashed in your youth".

Whatever choice you make is good. I don't see atheism better than theism or v.v. Most important is to choose what feels good for you without hurting others.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"Atheists are our natural allies, because they ask the right questions." -- Miskotte (Dutch Protestant Theologian).

I take his words to be both true about atheists (in the general sense), and even as something atheists themselves would do well to consider, should they harbor any fondness for painting all religious folks as irrationally prone to rejecting their points.

It is good to remind us of this from time to time. Theists do have a place at the table, and it would be a disservice to paint them all with the same brush.

Just as theists should also remember to do the same-- atheists consist of a wide range of people. Especially when you consider there is but a single, very thin thread binding them together (lack of faith in god-claims). And there is no "atheist bible". It's often been described that trying to get atheists to work together is akin to herding cats*.

Heck, there isn't even an Official Atheist Membership Card, is there?

And I'm so reminded of a Monty Python Sketch about a man complaining about Church Bells waking him up early on a Sunday Morning. He describes himself as a lapsed atheist, and really does intend to renew his Atheist Membership Card. His wife is a caring spouse, and had got him an Anti-Church Bell Guided Missile, conveniently stored up in the attic. Fans know the sketch, I'm sure.




*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

...for all that you do to keep one-way believers and literalists busy with challenging their assumptions. As a believer who was an atheist I greatly appreciate your efforts.

Let this thread be about believer appreciation for the role atheists play on this forum.

Atheists can be self-absorbed irrational ***-clowns too.

Err...why is everyone looking at me and nodding pointedly?

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's sad that, in discussions like these, folks so seldom bring up how atheists have revolutionized everyone's love lives just by being so inspiringly sexy.

I'll believe that when Dawkins puts it on a bus advert.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Atheists can be self-absorbed irrational ***-clowns too.

Err...why is everyone looking at me and nodding pointedly

We're to humble to point at ourselves. It would draw too much vain attention.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I would assume that an atheist would also dismiss the notion of dharma or Tao or Buddha-nature in their specific spiritual formulatlons as literal aspects of the universe.

I know a lot of atheists that really like the non-supernatural teachings of Buddhism. I respect the ideas, but I'm not that spiritual/introspective, so don't claim to be Buddhist myself. But I do like many of it's aspects.

 

[Cobol]

I'll never understand how someone can abandon logic and reason for faith. Arguments that heavily rely on reason that ultimately require faith, abandon reason. Appeal to faith is always a fallacy when used to justify a conclusion in the absence of reason.

 

[sayak83]

No significant family upbringing..

One never knows what seemingly insignificant,,
forgotten event or words can have a lifelong impact.

But of course, I will agree that you'd be one of a rare
few who were actual atheists and then went over to the dark side.

How much effect does family upbringing really have? I know that psychological research that Steve Pinker often cites show that parents have very little influence on the adult characters and behaviors of their children. Its roughly 1/3 rd genes, 1/3 rd peer group and 1/3 rd unknown. I am certain that birth does determine what religion a religiously inclined person is likely to choose, but not sure if parenting has any effect on them being religious/non-religious/spiritual/skeptical in orientation or not.

 

[Jumi]

Well, at least, I can't say what the pre-qualifications would be for deciding who could or would.

Potentially anyone could. I assume certain rigidity of mind could prevent it. As you said, atheists are often our "natural ally" much to the dismay of some folks.

 

[stvdv]

19 jun 2018 stvdv 011 83

I'll never understand how someone can abandon logic and reason for faith. Arguments that heavily rely on reason that ultimately require faith, abandon reason. Appeal to faith is always a fallacy when used to justify a conclusion in the absence of reason.

Once you have experienced the wonders and magic of faith, you never want to go back to "just reason"
Faith has to do with the heart, reason has to do with the mind. There lies a world of difference
Reason can originate from fear as well. To dare to take a plunge into "Faith" needs a lot of guts also

 

[blü 2]

False. I was atheist for around 95% of my early life. Though you could argue what length of time I've been theist in that 5+-a few %.

Interesting.

Is the god you now believe in the same god you didn't believe in, or have you found a different concept of god altogether?

And, if I may ask, what is god now to you that god wasn't before?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll never understand how someone can abandon logic and reason for faith. Arguments that heavily rely on reason that Castanets require faith, abandon reason. Appeal to faith is always a fallacy when used to justify a conclusion in the absence of reason.

There's reason. Believers clothe it in cultural practices and religious language. If you talk to them much deeper long enough, I notice they are defensive when I define their religion in a less mystical way. I guess the mystical part makes it look as though they dont have reason. Its undercover. Gotta look deeper.

 

[Looncall]

19 jun 2018 stvdv 011 83


Once you have experienced the wonders and magic of faith, you never want to go back to "just reason"
Faith has to do with the heart, reason has to do with the mind. There lies a world of difference
Reason can originate from fear as well. To dare to take a plunge into "Faith" needs a lot of guts also

Hearts pump blood, nothing more. Why do you persist in ancient errors?

 

[Jumi]

Is the god you now believe in the same god you didn't believe in, or have you found a different concept of god altogether?

I didn't believe in any gods. Though I had some idea of the God concept that I came to believe in, you could say the meanings behind the words were different. It's like when you have sex for the first time, you realize that much of the ideas about sex that people told you weren't quite accurate in your mind.

And, if I may ask, what is god now to you that god wasn't before?

Interesting though difficult question as you don't want to assume too much about something you can't measure through only brief experiental insights and changes to how view the world. There is no guidebook, like that of the believers of the books to give us our "set belief" of what God shall be like for us mystics. Though the experience makes it clear "what it is not or could not be" and serves through that as a sort of an inoculation against the disease of literalism either skeptical or believing type. It's kind of like plugging in a new device(a sensor) on a computer that we can only see through our network, but we get something like static that we find for some reason more meaningful than we thought possible. Though we're not sure of the signal it becomes a part of us, our own exploration so to speak. It doesn't even matter if there's a sender.

Foremost to me what it is now instead of what it was before that the experience called God or Gnosis exists on a level that I assumed wasn't possible. Whether it is supernatural, physical or reduced to any other thing is still rather meaningless to me. The God of the mystic doesn't lend itself as easily to definitions as the one of the literalist, creationist. It is easier to speak of what it is not. In short apophatic theology makes more sense here.

@Vouthon quoted :

The intellectual 'where' is the essential unnameable nothingness. So we must call it, because we can discover no mode of being, under which to conceive it

. In

this wild mountain region of the 'where' beyond God there is an abyss full of play and feeling for all pure spirits. No one can explain this to another just with words. One knows it by experiencing it...

Of course I understand that this probably makes little sense to you, but I've tried answering the question.

 

[ecco]

I would assume that an atheist would also dismiss the notion of dharma or Tao or Buddha-nature in their specific spiritual formulatlons as literal aspects of the universe.

You would be correct in assuming that atheists hold no superstitious beliefs.