The Religious Atheist

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
According to iceaura, it is bigoted of me to ignore the religious aspects of atheism. He gives the example of the atheist Navajo and the atheist Buddhist. As a previously brainwashed Muslim, I have simplistic ideas of atheism. I consider anyone who does not believe in God to be atheist.

Now from what I have read about Navajo religion and what I have seen of Buddhism, they look like deity worship to me. There are supernatural elements to both with ideas of a consciousness that controls and in the Navajo religion, a Prophet who is awaited a la the Dasha avatar of Vishnu, the messiah of the Jews, the Returning Jesus of Christianity and the Mahdi of the Shias.

Any religious atheists here? Please enlighten.
 
Now from what I have read about Navajo religion and what I have seen of Buddhism, they look like deity worship to me.
What about Juche? Religion or not? Atheist or not?
 
What about Juche? Religion or not? Atheist or not?

You tell me.

The Juche Idea (pronounced /tɕutɕʰe/ in Korean, approximately "joo-chay") is the official state ideology of North Korea and the political system based on it. The doctrine is a component part of Kimilsungism, the North Korean term for Kim Il-sung's family regime.[1] Juche literally means "main body" or "subject"; it has also been translated in North Korean sources as "independent stand" and the "spirit of self-reliance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche
 
What about Juche? Religion or not? Atheist or not?
The only wiggle room for any sort of theism might be hidden in adjective bolded below.
According to Kim Jong-il's On the Juche Idea, the application of Juche in state policy entails the following:

1. The people must have independence (chajusong) in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

The Juche outlook also requires absolute loyalty to the party and leader. In North Korea, these are the Workers' Party of Korea and Kim Jong-il, respectively.

To me I can see little need to separate belief systems in general from religions.
 
The Navajo have several supernatural beliefs in their worldview (the skinwalker is one). But there are several versions of the Navajo creation myth. At least one of these includes a Great God, but in a couple others the first man and woman are simply created by the water, earth and sky. Like a lot of Native mythology from American aboriginals, the Navajo also have some twin heroes involved in their creation stories, but where gods are present, they aren't analogous to Western or Eastern gods. Native American gods are beings that generally exist in another realm (i.e. the Underworld) and do their work there with little or no interaction in the human plane of existence.

So, while the Navajo don't have gods the way Western and Eastern religions do, I don't think I could call them atheist.

Buddhists, however, are a different story. Theravada Buddhism has no defined deity or deity worship. This is often referred to as the "Small Raft" form of Buddhism since so few people are able to adhere to its demands. Through the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path, adherents try to achieve varied levels of enlightenment. One of the mid levels is achieved by ridding oneself of the false view of self, doubt, and the clinging to rites and rituals. Mahayana Buddhists (the "Large Raft" adherents) are more numerous and include the actual worship of deities.

So, some Buddhists are atheists. Most are not. Some Navajo are atheists. Many are not.
 
The ones who are atheist, Navajo and Buddhist. Would you call them religious?

The only wiggle room for any sort of theism might be hidden in adjective bolded below.


To me I can see little need to separate belief systems in general from religions.

Doesn't the first requirement contradict with the absolute loyalty?
 
Buddhists, however, are a different story. Theravada Buddhism has no defined deity or deity worship. This is often referred to as the "Small Raft" form of Buddhism since so few people are able to adhere to its demands. Through the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path, adherents try to achieve varied levels of enlightenment. One of the mid levels is achieved by ridding oneself of the false view of self, doubt, and the clinging to rites and rituals. Mahayana Buddhists (the "Large Raft" adherents) are more numerous and include the actual worship of deities.

So, some Buddhists are atheists. Most are not. Some Navajo are atheists. Many are not.
There is something very theistic about the way the Buddha is related to - not to mention some humans like the King of Thailand - by many Buddhists. Whether it fits or not with whatever version of Buddhism they participate in, I find it very hard to distinguish from Western worship of monotheistic Gods. Sometimes it smacks more of pantheism with everything being the Buddha, but I can't quite call that atheism. I agree with you. In fact I would say many Buddhists are atheists, but its murky.
 
The ones who are atheist, Navajo and Buddhist. Would you call them religious?

I don't know them so I couldn't say. I just know they are non-theists. It would also depend on how you define "religious."
 
The ones who are atheist, Navajo and Buddhist. Would you call them religious?
The Navaho who are practicing Navaho sacred rites seem not to be atheists to me. You've got mother earth and spirits and sacred this and holy that - and I do not think this is a mere matter of faulty translation. But of course there are Navaho who don't believe in any of that. (not that you were asking me)

As far as Buddists, to me the distinction between belief system and religion seems very, very hazy to me. If nothing else it should depend a lot on how the person reached their conclusions. But overall I think the distinction gives all the wrong people on each side of the divide a sense of superiority.

Doesn't the first requirement contradict with the absolute loyalty?
Oh, you want consistent belief systems. There's a planet in the next galaxy that might offer you something.
 
SAM said:
According to iceaura, it is bigoted of me to ignore the religious aspects of atheism
No, that's not according to me. That's not what I said.

I said it was bigoted of you, and the Quran, to define other people's religious identities for them, from outside their culture and without considering their own comprehensions and understandings.

I provided parallel examples of other religious people defining "Muslim" and "Hindu", which you have found offensive and bigoted in the past. I provided no examples of other people ignoring the "religious aspects of atheism", or anything remotely similar to that, whatever you actually meant by it.
wise said:
The Navaho who are practicing Navaho sacred rites seem not to be atheists to me. You've got mother earth and spirits and sacred this and holy that - and I do not think this is a mere matter of faulty translation.
At least some traditional Navajo who are familiar with the Abrahamic God and similar deities claim their religion involves no such entities.

"Spirits" and holiness and supernatural entities and such, especially in translation, cannot be assumed as deities - any more than a believer in ghosts or fairies or angels is polytheistic, to point to a trivial example.
 
Last edited:
There is something very theistic about the way the Buddha is related to - not to mention some humans like the King of Thailand - by many Buddhists. Whether it fits or not with whatever version of Buddhism they participate in, I find it very hard to distinguish from Western worship of monotheistic Gods. Sometimes it smacks more of pantheism with everything being the Buddha, but I can't quite call that atheism. I agree with you. In fact I would say many Buddhists are atheists, but its murky.
That make speak more to a human desire to worship.

Daoism, of which I understand much more than Buddhism, has been perverted into an equally unrecognizable form. I had the privilege of reading the Dao De Jing long before I saw a modern Daoist temple or practice. I was literally baffled upon first seeing modern Daoists in their priestly, colourful robes, with a great many rituals and much order to their sermons and whatnot. All of this stood in exact opposition to everything I'd believed I'd just read in the Dao De Jing. My only explanation at the time was that I must certainly have misunderstood every word of that book. I understand more now, and have come to realize that these people are following very little of the Dao and much more of the many writers who came later, after Confucianism had already secured it's strangehold on the Chinese psyche.

In traditional Dao there is no need to believe in any god. Dao takes care of everything and, simultaneously, is nothing. Dao is the space in a bowl, the air of the valley and the emptiness below a roof. It is also nothing. Such is mysticism; take it or leave it.

Yet because of the modern perversion of Daoism and the outlandish lengths to which it has gone to compete with Buddhism and Confucianism, Dao is now officially a religion. The very notion of Dao being a state-recognized(read: controlled) religion is absurd and I can't imagine how the 'priests' manage to put on their robes in the morning without a sense of self disgust. (To be fair, there are people of every religion who ought to recoil in disgust as they preach to others.) Yet belief in Dao requires no belief in a diety. As such, one could - at least in China - be considered both religious (traditional Daoist) and an atheist. Remember; the key is that 'atheist' just means 'without belief in god(s)'. Religion, on the other hand, is not always defined as 'belief in god(s)'. It may be that your experience living amongst Muslim, Hindu and Christian cultures defines it that way, but it is not so in all parts of the world.
any more than a believer in ghosts or fairies or angels is polytheistic, to point to a trivial example.
This is a good example. Daoists may call themselves religious or spiritual, but they need not believe in gods any more than the crazy woman down the street believes in ghosts.
According to Kim Jong-il's On the Juche Idea, the application of Juche in state policy entails the following:

1. The people must have independence (chajusong) in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

The Juche outlook also requires absolute loyalty to the party and leader. In North Korea, these are the Workers' Party of Korea and Kim Jong-il, respectively.
Juche - that is, the body of work which espouses Jouche philosophy - is not a holy text, though it sometimes revered as one. So-called "Juche history" is, in many ways, reminiscent of religious texts. Kim Il-Sung is said to have been born at the foot of a holy mountain to a holy family, blah blah blah. As with many other of the hilarious (when not terrifying) aspects of North Korea, this seems to be the party's insistence on playing up folk-superstition while also telling their people to abandon all traditional superstitions.

To be fair, the quote is wrong. Absolute loyalty is sworn to Kim Jong-Il, but he is not the sitting president of North Korea. That honour still technically belongs to (the deceased) Kim Il-Sung. (Or, technically, The Eternal President.)

So it depends what you mean by 'religion'. There are strict rules and laws to follow. There is the demand of unwavering commitment. There is the fear of reprisal if one fails; yet no hope of reward for a life of hard work. There are no deities, though certainly there is demand for worship.

Juche can qualify as a religion only if one defines religion by the way people act (reverentially and with worship), rather than the beliefs or texts.
 
Is this another "please explain atheism to me" thread?

Yeah, I'm learning stuff. You?

No, that's not according to me. That's not what I said.

I said it was bigoted of you, and the Quran, to define other people's religious identities for them, from outside their culture and without considering their own comprehensions and understandings. .

Not at all. People are free to call themselves whatever they want. Aryan nation, Chosen people, atheist, secular humanist, higher caste, lower caste, even God or his incarnation if they feel like it.

But, its not necessary for me to agree with them. Its called having an opinion.
 
Buddhists have a varied tradition, some including what we might call faith, but at it's core, it is personal and even irreligious. Just because something is called a religion doesn't mean that the essence can be captured by a description of it's manifestations. Most Buddhists don't yet recognize what Buddha's enlightenment was. It was not a vision of a supernatural god.
 
I did.
I came here first...
and then here...
and then found a short list in Wiki

Is there some issue you feel should be addressed? Could you bring it up.

The link you posted has very little information draws no conclusion about whether it is a religion. 'Some scholars...' etc.
The issue for me is what is considered a religion. Juche seems very secular, but extreme. Is that enough to make it a religion? I think so. But in its tenets there is very little wiggle room for asserting this. Nothing supernatural, nothing directly holy - exception potentially what I mentioned - no God. Etc.

It is included on lists of world religions. I support that. I would also include Communism, Neo-conservatism, Scientology, even some fraternities, regardless of how secular they are.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top