Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why are you not Atheist?
First, let me apologize for the big mistake I'm about to make. I know the dangers of labels and hope you will forgive me for any assumptions that might be implied. Nonetheless, it seems there's been quite a bit of discussion lately that revolves around our personal views of our path, but for me it's been fairly superficial and I think we can learn a lot about ourselves when we share our personal history with others.
Most of us, it seems, have come to Buddhism from other religions/belief systems, but I'm interested in finding out why you now identify yourself as Buddhist vs. something else. What do you see in Buddhism that you don't see elsewhere? What is your personal story? Why do you not identify yourself as Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
One caveat I have is that no one criticize/judge/challenge the views of anyone who shares their thoughts or story here. The idea is to open up and share, and in so doing, grow our understanding of one another and make our experience here that much more meaningful.
I'll start off shortly.
Most of us, it seems, have come to Buddhism from other religions/belief systems, but I'm interested in finding out why you now identify yourself as Buddhist vs. something else. What do you see in Buddhism that you don't see elsewhere? What is your personal story? Why do you not identify yourself as Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.
One caveat I have is that no one criticize/judge/challenge the views of anyone who shares their thoughts or story here. The idea is to open up and share, and in so doing, grow our understanding of one another and make our experience here that much more meaningful.
I'll start off shortly.
0
Comments
I've never really called myself a "Buddhist", but for all intents and purposes that is how I would be described. The Buddha's teachings seem to be the only ones that represent a true impermanent/not-self reality and lead to self-realization of this reality; to peace. It's not about belief (for me), but about investigation and common sense. We are all sons and daughters of the Dharma/Tao/Suchness.
When I was a child I had a strong compassion for animals (beyond domesticated ones) that I realized was uncommon or not shared with other kids. My parents saw them as pests (we had a small problem with them) and would trap them/kill them. I didn't like this and felt conflicted, like I should relish in the death of a pest, but I didn't feel that way at my core. We also fished quite a lot and I remember trying to make myself physically sick so I wouldn't have to go. I didn't understand why I felt the way I did, and everyone around me didn't seem to mind, so I thought that it was just me. I successfully repressed these feelings over the years and sort of forgot about them.
I remember that we went to a Lutheran Church and that I never wanted to go. I didn't have a developed belief system at the time, I just thought it was boring and accepted what everyone else was telling me. I was baptized and confirmed, but really I was just doing what my parents wanted from me.
In my mid teens my faith in Christ was at it's peak. I recall having conversations with Him, having that "deep down" feeling that I've heard so many others talk about. Part of what was driving this was my interest in and fear of the message from "Revelations" the TV series. I completely believed that the end of the world was near and that we all needed to repent or would be condemned to hell for eternity.
A few years later, after the end of the world did not happen, I began thinking "maybe all these people are crazy?" I started thinking critically about religion, the cosmos, and the answer's I'd been told thus far. The whole "Is God powerful enough to create a boulder that even he cannot move" was my first exposure to the conundrum of God, and it went from there. Why do bad things happen? What came before God? If there is one true religion, why would God allow all the other religions to exist? What happens to those who are never exposed to the true religion....etc.
Basically, I became an Atheist. For a long time I was happy with this, but there were things that Atheism couldn't account for sufficiently in my mind. For example, why not just be completely selfish? Why do any "good" at all? I certainly didn't feel this was a good idea for myself, but since Atheism isn't organised, I had a hard time seeing it as a viable explanation for society at large, but it was more acceptable of an answer than God (in my opinion).
I had heard of Buddhism before, but didn't understand it. I knew it was a very peaceful religion, but thought it was just another "true" religion and never gave it a second thought. Then, one day, I heard it explained as an Atheist religion. This piqued my interest, because all of a sudden there was a major religion that didn't require a belief in God. To be honest though, I was quite turned off at first. The 4 noble truths seemed depressing and I didn't understand what was so important about meditation.
But, as I learned more and heard people talk about it things started to make sense. I began having a much clearer understanding of my own actions and the actions of others. I saw, in a very deep way (like I had when I was Christian) just how interconnect everything is and why it was so important to have compassion. And thus, the feelings I had toward the squirrels when I was younger began to make sense to me and I felt justified that those feelings were not "wrong" somehow, like I did back then.
And so, in the end, it was liberation. Psychologically, socially, intellectually and religiously that brought me to call myself Buddhist.
I guess that makes me an atheist.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.
Some Buddhists believe in devas, or gods. So they would be theistic, in a sense. Other Buddhists don't particularly believe in gods, like myself, and would be considered Atheist. Atheism, when used in informal speech, typically can mean the same thing as Agnostic-Atheism, which asserts that knowing if gods exist is unknowable as of now, so one will not believe in them without sufficient proof. Agnosticism doesn't take any side at all. If you are a Buddhist, you could be an Atheist, Agnostic, or Theist.
THE TERM BUDDHIST DOES NOT REPLACE THE LABEL ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, OR THEIST
Buddhism is merely the religion/way of life one follows. (A)Theism is just the viewpoint of a person when it comes to the question of gods.
I am personally an Agnostic-Atheist, for the time being.
QUOTE: Agnostic-Atheism, which asserts that knowing if gods exist is unknowable as of now, so one will not believe in them without sufficient proof.
Atheist - Agnostic-Atheist - Agnostic - Agnostic-Theist - Theist
There is also an apatheist (I think thats how its spelled) which means that one doesn't really care.
OK, since nobody wants to define "atheist", let's define "God". or "gods". How can we discuss this if we don't know what it is we're discussing, if we don't know what "god" is? Humanoid figures that live in the sky or inhabit some other mysterious dimension from ourselves? Then I'm an atheist. A ball of loving Light, like the NDE-ers describe? Maybe I'm an agnostic. Or maybe even a theist. or Energyist. I'm a Buddhist-Energyist. How's that?
A divine being or being with divine/supernatural powers. A Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
The word god is diverse, I suppose.
P.S. We usually use dictionaries or Wikipedia for definitions here.
I know we are also supposed to take an interest in gods/authority figures and, even if you don't, those gods are still interested in you (hopefully in a benevolent way) but still I know very little of gods except what some book or preacher tells me.
I cannot simply rely on my feeling either, perhaps the only certainty being that I think/I am.
Why can't I have that certainty?
(oh and yes god could self handicap so that a boulder would be 'unliftable', but why?)
Agnosticism is the "middle way" most consistent with Buddhism. The words "I don't know" are among the wisest a person can utter--and among the hardest, which is why more people swing to one or the other extreme: it's more comforting to "know" the answer than it is to abide in the uncertainty of not-knowing.
I'm not a theist because I don't know.
I'm neither unreligious nor irreligious because I feel that religion is the philosophy of the human spirit(defined as: The nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character). I think having a religion is part of the human experience.
As to why Buddhism over all other religions, I can only say "It makes 'sense' to me".
I would say that we're not really 'Atheist' in the sense that it is used by self-defined atheists, as there is a belief in rebirth (if we accept literal rebirth–some don't and that's good too, although it opens up a different aspect of the argument altogether). While it is not near the Abrahamic Heaven/Hell/Soul as a theology, it would be seen as a supernatural concept by modern Atheists. It would also depend on the vehicle of Buddhism we're talking about (e.g. Theravada Buddhism could be a better candidate for Atheism than say the Jodo Shinshu), and it's the diversity in Buddhism that can make this discussion really hard to navigate through.
I think ultimately trying to fit Buddhism into Atheism/Theism isn't really going to work, as the A/Theism dichotomy comes from a deity-centred realm of thought. For me at least, Buddhism isn't about whether there's a God or not, and while I don't pretend not to believe in literal rebirth, I think the goal of Nirvana is something that reaches beyond the supernatural and the natural. Maybe. I don't know, I'll let you know when I get there.
Since then I've been a Baptist Christian, Methodist, Pentecostal, briefly Catholic, and I attended a few years at a Nazarene Christian Academy (private K-12 school). Like @Phoenix, I had a period of profound connection with God during my teen years. Maybe it's the hormones and passionate emotion. I talked to God and believed he spoke back to me via subconscious implantation of thoughts.
From there, as briefly as possible:
Interest in general science and its methods led me to hold a more inquisitive, pragmatic, logic-and-evidence-seeking view.
Interest in anthropology led me to discover the origins of religion and the myriad of mutually exclusive "one true" religions. From a neutral footing I found no advantage in choosing one god over another, no sign that one is more real than the other, and I became an atheist.
Interest in philosophy and psychology led me to value and admire human accomplishments and to desire some kind of moral toolkit to help me be purposeful and happy.
Interest in physics (from quantum mechanics to astrophysics) led me to a renewed sense of awe at the nature of things, an almost spiritual wonder, and to discover Carl Sagan (who once said something very profound which I may address in a new thread). He also happened to have collaborated with this strange, pleasant, and charismatic man... the Dalai Lama. The rest is history.
Buddhism is it for me. With apologies to theists, any religion focused on pleasing a deity misses the point by so wide a margin as to be inconsequential at best. The point is to be happy. The point is to have compassion.
If I had to answer the question of religion with a specific label, I would nod to @MindGate, and call myself an "apathetic agnostic".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
Then, I was kind enough to introduce agnostics to my vocabulary.
Buddhism showed me that those are just labels or attempts to verbalize something which can’t be put in words. Very comforting but just tags.
What is left?
Moral spine / probably due to being product of religious societies but at the same time of a mystery of human DNA/
Faith in humans /because we can question all this /
Comfortable confusion.
A strong belief that if all the science and religions are right /combined/ – the universe would certainly advance.
Will this be according to our ethics? Who knows? However, our ethics are full of shortcomings from the ‘universe point of view’.
It is funny how the human vocabulary did not come up with describing your first statement except : confusion. It deserves more positive term.
Superstition is better than no belief
True belief is better than no belief
Giving yourself a title just traps you.
IF you know what ''True belief '' is.
Otherwise is just rhetoric..to 3 of your points.
If you "don't know", you're surely an Atheist. Atheism is not simply the rejection of God, it's the lack of belief, the absence of belief - If you do not know, then you do not believe, ergo you're an Atheist.
So what we see is confusion about these words. Many Agnostics do not understand Atheism, on the other hand many do not want the negative association that comes with being an Atheist. People look at militant anti-Theists like Christopher Hitchens and think that's what it is to be Atheist.
Technically Agnosticism is Atheism. But because of poor understanding many try to force a distinction that isn't necessarily there.
To me, and most people I think, "atheist" means someone who holds an active belief that there are no gods ("disbelief" in them is synonymous), rather than "not knowing" and keeping an open mind. After all, how do you define someone who has not taken a side/position? Would we call a newborn child an atheist, because they have not developed a belief yet of a God/gods? That would be quite ridiculous.
When you look at the human history ‘‘the religions ‘’ have been more stubborn then atheists.
Agnostics acknowledge and excuse the ‘’not knowing’’ .
At least it is open and tolerant to dogmas.
At the same time, admits: it does not know and does not need easy answers.
Plus a lot of atheists are agnostics. / they have no a knowledge of the last term./
Atheism IS someone who holds an active belief there is no God, but it's also the absence of belief, and it's also disbelief. It's all 3 of these things, and historically it's been understood to encompass various positions and non-positions.
It's only in recent times, with an increase in fallacious reasoning(many Agnostics engage in the Golden Mean Fallacy) and the corruption of the English language -- thanks mainly to America -- that absence of belief has been something considered and defined as separate or different to Atheism. Atheism has historically, and still is depending on where you are on the Earth, been considered to be a non-position... Not exclusively, mind.
ReligiousTolerance have a good entry on Atheism, for anyone unfamiliar with these views and non-views being attributed to Atheism:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
Personally I don't even believe Atheism as a word should exist. Atheism is just the default position, it's someone who isn't a Theist; Whether through rejection, ignorance or not knowing. We don't call people who don't play football afootballers, we don't call non-Buddhists Abhuddists...
As a word it's pretty asinine.
These are all just labels, but they should at least be useful. The example of saying a baby is an atheist points out that using atheist in that way isn't very useful. Better to say a baby isn't anything because they haven't made any choices yet. Choices are what really define us. We choose to believe, or to disbelieve, or neither. That's what we should look to, and what the labels should cover.
Anyway I think this is a moot debate, neither side is likely to change, and we should move on. Perhaps the thread should've been titled "Why do you believe?" instead of using the word Atheist.
Atheist''
No way Cloud,
Atheism or agnostism is also a belief and faith.
But at least we agree on something, the word in itself is useless. I'd be happy if Theists were called Theists and everyone else wasn't called, self-described or otherwise, anything.
Do we have a word for non-Buddhists? Or people who don't like cucumbers? Or people who don't believe in UFO's? There is no word for these people, no agnosticism for these people, as it would be illogical to create them, irrational to use them. Atheism and Agnosticism are equally irrational in my opinion.
There can't really be more to be said on the matter. How do you argue about why a belief is "true"? well, you DON'T argue. Everyone has to accept the teaching for themselves. No one can convince you.
Exactly.
Humans communicate using a language.
When it comes to abstract words there is a lot of confusion. They have different meanings to the individuals.
Even Buddha is perceived in so many different ways according to culture or a country
Faith that :the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable