Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

[Fraggle Rocker]

No. I once ran into a study that seemed to indicate - and it was carefully done - that something like 4% (IIRC) of Catholic priests were atheist. Some Buddhists are atheist. Some Navajo shamans think their religion is atheist. It's probable that a large majority of the world's atheistic people have a religion.

If you take a strict definition of "Buddhist," most Buddhists are atheists. Remember, the Buddha was just a man. Many of them believe in the supernatural, but not gods, and if you take a strict definition of "religion," it must include a god.

Which is why, using that same strict definition, no atheists have a religion.

Some Buddhists are members of religions, who later in life adopted the Buddhist philosophy because they found it did not conflict with their religion. So they are religious, but their religion has nothing to do with Buddhism and vice versa.

 

[S.A.M.]

If you take a strict definition of "Buddhist," most Buddhists are atheists

Make that most Buddhists in the west. Most Asian Buddhists believe in God

Most American Buddhists are also theists

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/06/buddhists-do-believe-in-god/

The author of that article makes a great point "to generalize about a religion one must look at the true distribution of beliefs and practices, not just scholarly inferences based on textual clues in their scriptures."

I think that is the most common sense approach.

 

[GeoffP]

The author of that article makes a great point "to generalize about a religion one must look at the true distribution of beliefs and practices, not just scholarly inferences based on textual clues in their scriptures."

I think that is the most common sense approach.

I thought you disagreed with that as applied to your own religion?

 

[iceaura]

Most American Buddhists are also theists

Your poll graph there confused "universal spirit" with deity.

No conclusion about deity is possible, from such a confused approach. The even worse presumption in the graph - apparently that God is assumed whenever a universal spirit appears - is borderline dishonest, and makes me suspect an underlying agenda both in the pollster and the author.

I would not be surprised to find many theistic American Buddhists, but a belief in some kind of "universal spirit" seems to me likely to be more common, and perfectly compatible with atheism.

 

[Nasor]

Your poll graph there confused "universal spirit" with deity.

No conclusion about deity is possible, from such a confused approach. The even worse presumption in the graph - apparently that God is assumed whenever a universal spirit appears - is borderline dishonest, and makes me suspect an underlying agenda both in the pollster and the author.

I would not be surprised to find many theistic American Buddhists, but a belief in some kind of "universal spirit" seems to me likely to be more common, and perfectly compatible with atheism.

What specifically does "universal spirit" even mean? It seems like an almost meaningless term.

 

[iceaura]

What specifically does "universal spirit" even mean? It seems like an almost meaningless term

If someone asked me the question, I'd probably take it as pointing to the Taoist "Way", and answer depending on the intent of the questioner - "no" if the questioner was a fundie Abrahamic theist doing missionary work, "yes" if the questioner was a fan of Alan Watts's writings and asking in that context, and so forth.

 

[Doreen]

What specifically does "universal spirit" even mean? It seems like an almost meaningless term.

Most people who use this term would mean that there is an underlying consciousness, experiencer which includes everything/everyone. It has a pantheist/panentheist air to it. Also a new age air.

I agree with people's objections to assuming that someone answering, in the affirmative, a poll with those choices has clearly agreed they are a theist. I think someone coming up with the term on their own, who self-identifies as believing in a universal spirit, is likely to be a theist by definition. But people be presented with the term in the way the poll did are likely to carefully not dismiss an already vague term. They will do this by making it even vaguer, in many cases, and going along with it.

 

[S.A.M.]

What specifically does "universal spirit" even mean? It seems like an almost meaningless term.

Traditional Chinese religions are polytheistic, like Hindus, they have multiple deities and believe they represent fallible avatars from a cosmic source. In Hinduism it is the Brahman, in Chinese religions it is the universal spirit which can be the energy itself or the dharma that is required to practice the religion [a kind of doctrine vs praxis].

Lord Lao and the three Pure Ones are put at the top of the Taoist pantheon - Lao is a significant philosopher in Taoism and is worshipped as a deity by religious Taoists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Celestial_Master

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Pure_Ones

I thought you disagreed with that as applied to your own religion?

Quite the reverse, I am on record as saying that there are as many Islams as there are Muslims and the practice of a few cannot be generalised to the whole. The true distribution of beliefs and practices is indeed an accurate generalisation of the religion itself. Rather than what a handful of dictators under western intervention declare to be the religion.

 

[Michael]

I think most people would recognize Universal Spirit as being The Force. Or, if not, they should.

 

[Michael]

RE: OP
Isn't being an Atheist a religion?

Most people have no idea who or what Xenu is. They simply lack a belief in Xenu. One could say, they are, aAlienologists. aAlienology is really a default mindset - I mean, if you stop and not-think about it a moment

 

[S.A.M.]

I think most people would recognize Universal Spirit as being The Force. Or, if not, they should.

universal spirit is a pretty vague term, however, I generally go by what I see of practice. If I see people praying to a deity, they can call it whatever they like, to me its a belief in God. There is no difference [other than semantics] in calling it qi or universal spirit or a formless genderless Allah. If you spoke to 100,000 Muslims and a 100,000 Buddhists, you'd probably find the same degree of distribution in their beliefs on God.

This could be right out of the Qur'an

"Surrrender yourself humbly;
Then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love this world as yourself;
Then you can truly care for all things."—Lao Tsu

And this is jihad:
"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength." —Lao Tsu


Buddhism per se, is not incompatible with the notion of God or Godlessness. So being a Buddhist theist or atheist is no big deal. But when we have things like Jewish atheists with monotheism being the central tenet of Judaism, I have to really wonder if people can ever make sense of their own identities. How strange it is that less than half of all Jews are theists? How does that even make sense?

 

[Michael]

Jedi Code
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no death, there is the Force.

Jedi Creed
Jedi are the guardians of peace in the Galaxy.
Jedi use their powers to defend and protect, never to attack others.
Jedi respect all life, in any form.
Jedi serve others rather than rule over them, for the good of the Galaxy.
Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and training.


I can't quite remember, are there any Gods in the Jedi Universe? I don't think so. But, I'm pretty sure being Jedi is compatible with either atheism or theism?

 

[Michael]

And this is jihad:
"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength." —Lao Tsu

Could you quote something from the Qur'an that is similar to this?

 

[S.A.M.]

. But, I'm pretty sure being Jedi is compatible with either atheism or theism?

I'm pretty sure it can be. People interpret and personify God in many ways.

 

[Michael]

I'm pretty sure it can be. People interpret and personify God in many ways.

People interpret music in many different ways.

I suppose why I asked was specifically because this bit of advice from Lao Tsu, seems to be, in my opinion, one Human talking to another. That is, the meaning is discernable primarily because it's coming from someone who has experienced what it means to be human. And given this some thought. This is a person who understands the human condition because he is a human living it.

Also, there's no need for Gods or Goddesses to create and comprehend that verse. Isn't THAT interesting?

One could say, if set too highly in a Gods-paradigm, the meaning itself becomes muddled and is lost :shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

People interpret music in many different ways.

I suppose why I asked was specifically because this bit of advice from Lao Tsu, seems to be, in my opinion, one Human talking to another. That is, the meaning is discernable primarily because it's coming from someone who has experienced what it means to be human. And given this some thought. This is a person who understands the human condition because he is a human living it.

Also, there's no need for Gods or Goddesses to create and comprehend that verse. Isn't THAT interesting?

One could say, if set too highly in a Gods-paradigm, the meaning itself becomes muddled and is lost :shrug:

Actually without a source of power and an ideal for morality, both submission to the ideal and attainment of it are meaningless. Without a goal and the precepts that define your struggle, what exactly are you doing in the race? Although the thread on zero probability of getting anywhere with zero faith was shut down precipitately, the point it made was very valid. Atheism is a dead end. It goes nowhere.

Could you quote something from the Qur'an that is similar to this?

Yup and I have, several times over the last five years, refer to any of your threads on the topic.

 

[Michael]

Actually without a source of power and an ideal for morality, both submission to the ideal and attainment of it are meaningless.

What about polytheists? Anyway, the source for morality is humanity. Ideal morality is powered by human consciousness. Attaining an ideal is a human experience. That aside, Buddhists don't have a problem attaining enlightenment and they can be atheist. I suppose you're going to have to be much more specific. I read Lao Tsu and walk away thinking his advice is purely and uniquely based on the human condition. No different than many philosophies.

Without a goal and the precepts that define your struggle, what exactly are you doing in the race? Although the thread on zero probability of getting anywhere with zero faith was shut down precipitately, the point it made was very valid. Atheism is a dead end. It goes nowhere.

If you speak to young people you'll see that from their point of view, the dead end is monotheology. As for why be in the race? I'm not sure if reaching enlightenment is a race. And again, I know atheists Buddhists that don't seem to be in much of a hurry. As for Atheism, it may, one day, be a dead end. It's possible (depending what you mean by dead end - I'll interpret it to mean social stagnation). Things go in cycles like that. :shrug: Not now though. Questioning the Gods made the modern world. Wondering why the Bible was wrong - spurred on the Enlightenment. Atheism was some of the fuel (maybe an additive in the engine that powered the creation of the Modern Scientific rational World

 

[S.A.M.]

Anyway, the source for morality is humanity. Ideal morality is powered by human consciousness.

Its pointless talking to atheists on the subject. Do you understand what "human consciousness" means? Or what "ideal morality" is?

Wondering why the Bible was wrong - spurred on the Enlightenment

Er no. Thats not what happened. But, carry on.

Is being an atheist a religion? Only if they practice it.

 

[Michael]

I'd say it's pointless speaking to a theist (actually on second thought it isn't pointless, but, when people really really really want to believe something is true, it's hard to have a rational and logical discussion around that topic).

Logically speaking:
The source of gravity is based in physical reality (mass).
The source for fear is based in physical reality (amygdala).
The source for "human consciousness" is based on physical reality (human brain).
The source for morality is based in physical reality (human beings).


We may not fully agree as to what rationally constitutes gravity, fear, consciousness or morality are, but, I can say with some certainty that, whatever they are, it's based in physical reality.


That aside, maybe I didn't get your cryptic post regarding "without a source of power and an ideal for morality, both submission to the ideal and attainment of it are meaningless". This sounded to me like you don't believe an atheist could gain enlightenment. But, that's not true if the source of enlightenment is and always has been human beings. I wonder what else it could be that's logical? It's surely not based on magic is it? As you probably know, many Buddhists are atheists, they attain enlightenment just fine. This is evidence that such attainment of an ideal, is wholly based on, even dependent on, the human experience and not any other source.

 

[Michael]

IMO part of what led people to conduct any kind of research is questioning dogma. However, making some money would be a close second. Serendipity probably plays a large role in eureka moments. Either way, I'm pretty such that if "discoverer's" were not allowed to question accepted wisdom (some of which was based on the Bible stories and some was Greek philosophy) then I think we'd still be living life as people did 250 years ago. Europeans made a LOT of advancements in a relatively short period of time. A revolution of ideas. I have sometimes wondered, perhaps this was not having lived a life of daily ritualistic conditioning to submit to their superstition, this left our European forefathers with enough faculties to question what needed questioned? The Greeks, who were superstitious (but not monotheistic) seems to have had enough mental leeway to allow for some questioning of the Gods (existence thereof) - I mean, one of the first recorded European "atheists" was a Greek living during the Age Hellenization. A coincidence? Probably not.