Clarifying 'Atheism'

[Danmark]

I'm putting this in a 'discussion' forum rather than as a 'debate' topic because this is definitely MY view, and I don't think it is shared by most.
On this forum I call myself a 'non theist' rather than an 'atheist.' I do so because I think 'atheist' is misunderstood.

For me, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the obviously anthropomorphic god of the Bible; i.e., a god who has the personality and behavior of humans. An atheist [or non theist] may believe in or be open to the possibility of a force/power/spirit (X) that is beyond definition. This 'X' could also be called 'God,' but obviously this is for most a very different concept than the orthodox Christian God. For me, this supersized human alluded to in the Bible is on its face a ridiculous concept.

This kind of atheism (non theism) is not unlike the beliefs of some Christian mystics like Thomas Merton. Tho' different, J.B. Phillips in 'Your God is Too Small,' addressed some of this kind of thinking.
https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/20 ... too-small/

I think a Christian can [and some do] believe in this God who is beyond and above the anthropomorphic image portrayed in most of the Bible.

[Divine Insight]

I think a Christian can [and some do] believe in this God who is beyond and above the anthropomorphic image portrayed in most of the Bible.

I suggest that it would be an extreme oxymoron for any "Christian" to not believe in the anthropomorphic image of the God portrayed in the Bible.

Christianity is based on the believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of Yahweh. Purposefully planned by Yahweh to be born of a virgin, including angels appearing to Mary and Joseph to explain this to them.

The Gospels also have Jesus himself casting out actual demons from people's bodies into the bodies of swine. There is no room for metaphors here when the demons are begging Jesus to cast them into the body of a pig instead of just killing them or whatever.

There just is no room in Christianity to allow for anything other than an anthropomorphic God as portrayed in the Bible. Angels, and demons must also be accepted as being far more than just metaphors.

The idea that Chrsitianity could be kept afloat as a metaphorical religion that does not require the existence of an anthropomorphic Godhead simply cannot stand without going back and rewriting the scriptures in major ways. Or simply rejecting major chunks of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.

Why anyone would want to even bother trying to keep such a ill-defined version of Christianity afloat is beyond me.

~~~~~~

Regarding the term "Atheist", I think atheists should drop that term entirely and instead refer to themselves as "Secularists" and just focus on keeping religions out of public affairs.

A secularist doesn't even need to claim that there is no God or spiritual essence to reality. All they need to do is take a stand to keep such beliefs out of any public governments.

Is someone wants to also be a "non-theist" or even an "anti-theist" more power to them. But that should be taken up as a separate issue from secularism.

But we don't need "atheists" at all. Secularists are what we need.

Secularist - a person who advocates separation of the state from religious institutions.

What a secularist might believe about any gods is irrelevant. A devout Christian could be a secularist, and in fact, many Christians are secularists.

[Danmark]

DI, I thought of you when I wrote this. Two reasons:

1st, This 'X' or force or 'god' I refer to is consistent with Buddhist ideas.
2d, I completely agree with you that the orthodox Christian view where Jesus somehow becomes God in a mysterious and impossible way is indeed inconsistent with what I've proposed.

However, there are Christians who are not so hidebound. Those Christians [and perhaps I am one of them] believe that Jesus of Nazareth is much like the Buddha in that he had a relationship with the eternal, with this mysterious X. In this regard he was open to the ultimate reality rather than this ridiculous anthropomorphic God of orthodoxy.

[Divine Insight]

DI, I thought of you when I wrote this. Two reasons:

1st, This 'X' or force or 'god' I refer to is consistent with Buddhist ideas.
2d, I completely agree with you that the orthodox Christian view where Jesus somehow becomes God in a mysterious and impossible way is indeed inconsistent with what I've proposed.

However, there are Christians who are not so hidebound. Those Christians [and perhaps I am one of them] believe that Jesus of Nazareth is much like the Buddha in that he had a relationship with the eternal, with this mysterious X. In this regard he was open to the ultimate reality rather than this ridiculous anthropomorphic God of orthodoxy.

I am more than prepared to embrace a historical Jesus who is much like the Buddha. In fact, I will even support the idea that Jesus well educated in the ideas of Mahayana Buddhism even if he was not exposed to those idea as such. In other words, he may very well have been introduced to these philosophical ideas by like-minded Jews who also had a mystical view of "God".

However, none of that is the 'Christian' theology. So why bother embracing the term "Christian" when this view of Jesus is not compatible with Christian theology?

Back when I was a Christian, I tried everything I could think of to "save Jesus" in terms of Christian theology. I finally realized that this is quite literally impossible. Especially if we are going to try to maintain the Bible in any literal sense at all (even in a loosely-defined metaphorical literal sense).

So I came to the realization that the Christian "Christ" is not possible.

It was quite some time after having come to that realization that I was introduced to the history of Buddhism and became aware that the behaviors of Jesus were in total harmony with Mahayana Buddhism which was the dominant form of Buddhism in the time and place where Jesus had lived.

Suddenly it became crystal clear to me that Jesus was indeed trying to bring the higher wisdom of Mahayana Buddhism into his home culture. And I could see where Jesus would even see this "fitting" together perfectly, since there would be no objections in Mahayana Buddhism at all, and there wouldn't be any objections from Jews who had a very spiritual view of "God" rather than an anthropomorphic view.

It is also easy to see how and why Jesus was grossly misunderstood by orthodox Jewish fundamentalists like the Pharisees.

However, a far more important realization to take away from this is that this wouldn't mean that Buddhism is then true. Nor would it mean that Jesus in any way contributes to the merit of Buddhism.

All it would mean is that Jesus learned of Buddhism, embraced it, and tried to bring this morally superior philosophy into his home culture of Judaism. This attempt ended up in his ultimate crucifixion, upon which time he either died and rumors sprang up about his supposed resurrection, or he survived the crucifixion, still giving rise to rumors about his resurrection, but with him ultimately leaving the area.

To refer to him today as the "Christ" or the "Christian Jesus" would not in any way reflect the Buddhist connection. To the contrary, to refer to Jesus as the "Christ" or to acknowledge "Christianity" in any way would be to loan support to the Christian theology, not support the Buddhist view of a mystical and Pantheistic "God".

Remember Jesus taught "I and the Father are One". Which is the Buddhist view of Pantheism. But the Christians take this to mean the Jesus and Yahweh are one.

When challenged Jesus replied by saying, "Is it not written in your law, ye are Gods?"

Again we see the Buddhist view of Pantheism in play. Jesus is saying that we are all one with the "Father" (i.e. God).

The Christians don't even have a reason why Jesus would have pointed out that even the Hebrew scriptures proclaim that we are gods.

Obviously Jesus saw pantheism in the Hebrew Scriptures, where the orthodox Jews did not.

The Christians view Yahweh like Zeus. And so if someone claims to be one with Yahweh, they take that literally.

So any time you use the terms "Christian" or "Christ" you are supporting an anthropomorphic Zeus-like Godhead. If you don't want to support that view, then it would be best to avoid using those terms.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

I agree with everything you've written. I start from the premise that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person and that Paul the Delirious, wracked by guilt, Greek intellect and saddled with the Jewish tradition cobbled together Christology. This mongrel result had nothing to do with reality. But for me the real Jesus somehow shines thru this Pauline corruption.

I also agree that Jesus would be absolutely appalled by the name 'Christianity.' "Christianity" is absolutely antithetical to everything Jesus preached. He preached that "The Kingdom of God" was within us. Jesus never claimed to be God. There is no record in the Gospels even of such a claim. Thomas Sheehan makes an excellent case for this:
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/

[Divine Insight]

DI, I thought of you when I wrote this. Two reasons:

1st, This 'X' or force or 'god' I refer to is consistent with Buddhist ideas.
2d, I completely agree with you that the orthodox Christian view where Jesus somehow becomes God in a mysterious and impossible way is indeed inconsistent with what I've proposed.

However, there are Christians who are not so hidebound. Those Christians [and perhaps I am one of them] believe that Jesus of Nazareth is much like the Buddha in that he had a relationship with the eternal, with this mysterious X. In this regard he was open to the ultimate reality rather than this ridiculous anthropomorphic God of orthodoxy.

I fully understand what you are saying here. And at one time I actually embraced a similar view for a while. However, I have since come to realize that even this view may be an overly romantic wishful thinking on our part.

Consider specifically the idea: believe that Jesus of Nazareth is much like the Buddha in that he had a relationship with the eternal, with this mysterious X.

I think this is the very trap we need to be careful not to fall into. To begin with I'm not convinced that the Buddha had any mysterious relationship with any "eternal x".

When I suggest that Jesus most likely embraced Buddhist philosophy and tried to incorporate that in with his mystical Jewish beliefs, I don't mean to imply that Buddhism is then true and that the Buddha was in touch with any "mysterious eternal X". All I'm saying is that Jesus appears to have been aware of, and embraced Buddhist philosophical and moral principles.

That could be true without any implication that any "mysterious eternal X" is required. They just happened to be two men who embraced similar philosophies, with Jesus having lived in a time when he could have been fully aware of the teaching of the Buddha. Therefore Jesus got his ideas from Buddhism, not from a relationship with a "mysterious eternal X".

[Danmark]

DI, I thought of you when I wrote this. Two reasons:

1st, This 'X' or force or 'god' I refer to is consistent with Buddhist ideas.
2d, I completely agree with you that the orthodox Christian view where Jesus somehow becomes God in a mysterious and impossible way is indeed inconsistent with what I've proposed.

However, there are Christians who are not so hidebound. Those Christians [and perhaps I am one of them] believe that Jesus of Nazareth is much like the Buddha in that he had a relationship with the eternal, with this mysterious X. In this regard he was open to the ultimate reality rather than this ridiculous anthropomorphic God of orthodoxy.

I fully understand what you are saying here. And at one time I actually embraced a similar view for a while. However, I have since come to realize that even this view may be an overly romantic wishful thinking on our part.

Consider specifically the idea: believe that Jesus of Nazareth is much like the Buddha in that he had a relationship with the eternal, with this mysterious X.

I think this is the very trap we need to be careful not to fall into. To begin with I'm not convinced that the Buddha had any mysterious relationship with any "eternal x".

When I suggest that Jesus most likely embraced Buddhist philosophy and tried to incorporate that in with his mystical Jewish beliefs, I don't mean to imply that Buddhism is then true and that the Buddha was in touch with any "mysterious eternal X". All I'm saying is that Jesus appears to have been aware of, and embraced Buddhist philosophical and moral principles.

That could be true without any implication that any "mysterious eternal X" is required. They just happened to be two men who embraced similar philosophies, with Jesus having lived in a time when he could have been fully aware of the teaching of the Buddha. Therefore Jesus got his ideas from Buddhism, not from a relationship with a "mysterious eternal X".

Once again, I do not disagree with any of what you write here. For me the problem is that I cannot define this 'X' of which I speak. What may unite the Buddha with Jesus is their openness to this unnamable reality.

For me, all attempts to crystallize the unknown are sordid and clumsy. All we can do is to be open to truth, to wonder. I like the idea there is some transcendent something that unites us in some positive way. But the efforts to reduce this mystery to some catechism or doctrine is something akin to blasphemy.

[Divine Insight]

For me, all attempts to crystallize the unknown are sordid and clumsy. All we can do is to be open to truth, to wonder. I like the idea there is some transcendent something that unites us in some positive way. But the efforts to reduce this mystery to some catechism or doctrine is something akin to blasphemy.

The thing of it is that we are all united. Not only are we all made of the same "star stuff" of this universe, but on Earth we humans are even all genetically related.

To think that there isn't a 'transcendent something' that unites us in some positive way is absurd. There doesn't need to be a "Zeus" for this to be true. We are this universe. Or if you like you can say we are all children of the universe.

I'm not sure what more should be needed.

I live alone, and have little need for a close live relationship with other humans. Although I do read a lot of books and thrive on sharing the thoughts and knowledge of other humans. So it would be wrong to suggest that I don't have a close connection with other humans. The only caveat here is that most of the humans that I have a close "relationship" with I've never met in person, and they don't even know I exist. It's a "one-way" relationship. I read their books or watch their videos.

It's still a relationship none the less because I identify with their ideas and thoughts.

More to the point, I actually have a far closer relationship with non-human animals. Especially my cat. He sleeps in my bed at night and is under my feet all day. And this gets back to your point. I actually share a connection with this cat. I recognize this cat as be "related" to me biologically. It's a mammal just like me. We have a very "cosmic connection", or "transcendent relationship" if you want.

The idea that there needs to be a "God" or any form of higher intelligence or consciousness is simply not required. My cat and I are both conscious entities. We at least have that transcendent commonality if nothing else.

And we were both create via evolutionary processes from start stuff.

I just don't know why it's necessary to imagine something more.

What shouldn't the mere fact that all that exists is common to the cosmos be enough in and of itself?

Why is there a need for something more?

Also, I like what the Dalai Lama once said: "If the Big Bang happened once, it can happen again".

In other words, no matter how much physics we think we know, the idea that this existence is in any way finite is truly silly, precisely because of the truth spoken by the Dalai Lama.

If we can exist today, there is really no reason to think that we won't exist tomorrow.

In fact, it would actually be quite silly to think otherwise.

So there really isn't any need for any "Mysterious X" or "God". All you need to do is realize that existence itself is a mystery. Period.

That should be sufficient in and of itself.

If there is ever a time when you do exist, then there's really no reason to believe that there could ever be a time when you won't exist.

You talk about Jesus and Buddha possibly having a relationship with a mysterious x, or possibly some type of enlightenment or epiphany. Well, I actually had my own epiphany when I was quite young. I came to the realization that there was never a time when I did not exist, nor will there ever be a time when I will cease to exist.

It was an intuitive epiphany. You might call it an "enlightenment" of the true nature of my eternal existence. To me it was as obvious as anything. Not vial logical analysis. But I simply "knew" that it was true. Don't ask me how I knew, I just knew. It's one of those things that can only be called a "spiritual experience".

We can, of course, put on our philosopher's hats and sit down and have endless discussions about whether or not this intuitive knowledge has any merit. But for me, such conversations are unnecessary. I'll just point to the Dalai Lama saying, "If the Big Bang happened once, it can happen again".

I'm here now. So I see no reason why I can't be here again.

And again, and again, and again, and again,...

[Danmark]

For me, all attempts to crystallize the unknown are sordid and clumsy. All we can do is to be open to truth, to wonder. I like the idea there is some transcendent something that unites us in some positive way. But the efforts to reduce this mystery to some catechism or doctrine is something akin to blasphemy.

The thing of it is that we are all united. Not only are we all made of the same "star stuff" of this universe, but on Earth we humans are even all genetically related.

To think that there isn't a 'transcendent something' that unites us in some positive way is absurd. There doesn't need to be a "Zeus" for this to be true. We are this universe. Or if you like you can say we are all children of the universe.

I'm not sure what more should be needed.

I agree, it is not 'needed.' I said I like the idea of it, not that it is necessary or likely. I'm just referring to an unknown, without defining it. I completely reject the notion of a "Zeus.' I think it is likely ours is a completely mechanistic universe with nothing transcendent at all. There is no transcendent 'purpose' other than what we choose for ourselves. I wish it were not so, but I see nothing else which is why I phrase it as a vague hope, not a belief.

I would love it if there were something more than just the kinship we feel with others, including our cats. What's not to like about the fantasy of a personal God who created everything, who will punish evil and good will triumph in the end and we will spend eternity in bliss. But it is a fantasy. I get annoyed when I hear the theist claim the non theist 'hates God' or rejects god for some personal 'anti god' reason. I would love it if their fantasy were true. But wanting it to be does not make it so.

I am content to love my wife, my family, my friends and my two cats who provide endless fun as they play with each other. They have the REAL answer to life. They don't think about why there are stars, they just play.