Christians dont understand Atheist Quotes
August 4, 2007 by AnswerMan
I had a discussion with a Christian yesterday and our conversation moved on to a topic that ended in me trying to explain a quote that I really love.
She had many questions about Atheism but she was more curious about an Atheist Quote that I randomly used.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just go one god further than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Stephen Robert
I gave her only the first half of this quote since I wasn’t trying to disprove her God. I was expecting her show signs of discomfort for calling her an Atheist but to my surprise, Her immediate response to it was that she does not understand what it means to say “I just go one god further than you“.
That was when it hit me. I see Atheist quotes & phrases on bumper stickers, T-shits and graffiti all the time and always thought that It was also read and understood by the Theists who walk the same path. But it never occurred to me that they do not understand what it means.
I explained it to her and she understood the quote the same way Atheists do (way to go, me!). Here I’ll try to elaborate on the quote so that more Christians would understand the quote that she herself asked me to post on my web-log. But first, its time to define Atheism & Theism.
* Theism: The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods. Any belief system that includes at least one concept of divinity, god, or the supernatural.
* Atheism: The disbelief or non-belief in the Existence of a God or gods. A state that includes the lack of belief in at least one concept of divinity, god, or the supernatural.
Please note, I don’t worship Satan, Humans, Dragons, the Dead, or Aliens. Atheism is merely the lack of belief (or disbelief) in Theism.
That said, lets move on to the quote of the day. Everyone is an Atheist once they reject or show disbelief in any kind of Theology. A Christian does not follow the Holy Quran, A Muslim does not follow the Holy book of Bhagvath Gita & a Satanist does not follow the Holy Bible. I’m an Atheist because I do not follow any of the above mentioned books, I chose to go one god further than the Christian, the Hindu, the Muslim & the Satanist. Therefore we are all Atheists, in respect of the theology that we simply choose not to subscribe to.
But once you get there, what is it that an atheist would worship? Himself? Humanity?
These few questions from her were totally unexpected, I believed she was smarter than this, but maybe it could all have been curiosity. Of course, I do not laugh at these questions because who else is she going to ask? Who else to get better an answers than from an Atheist himself?
Atheists do not follow a set of theology and hence there is nothing that an atheist would worship. Then again, Its up to the Atheist to choose what he worships (remember, even a Christian is an Atheist). But generally speaking, referring to the true Atheists, They simply do not worship anything. Living does not require the need to worship. Sure I recognize the awesome feeling you get while praying. The sense of security you receive at Gods arms (If he/she has any), for I have prayed too, many moons ago when I was a Christian. But one can live without this false sense of security because once he puts away the idea of a protecting father above, he puts away the idea of the mean little red devil below too. Therefore, they do not require prayer. And is free from what I like to call “mind police”
Praying to Humanity & Himself is an interesting topic, but The Atheist does neither of this. In Satanism, The book of Lucifer has many essays, It follows up on the concept of “I am my own god” with a full explanation of the Satanic egocentric view of the world. An Atheist never prays to himself or Humanity. But shares love for all human kind, out of compassion and just because we see the suffering the world is in because it is our compassion that sets us apart from other non-social animals.
I am my own god has somewhat become catch phrase for teen atheists, but its just because they want to piss off a few theists. Pagans have often been confused with Satanism, which is not true. I have respect for that religion, I’m yet to learn more about it, so I better leave it here.
She agreed and said it was clear to her, but she further said,
Only difference is that I believe I know and you are still unsure and are still searching.
As an Atheist, I disagree with that statement. Simply by going one god further does not mean I’m in an eternal search for the unknown or to find the true GOD(s). The planet offers hundreds of religions that I can subscribe to or go looking for a God. It is humanly impossible to test the validity of every bit of theology that was ever written. But this does not mean an Atheists will just sit & relax drinking tequila all day long once he looses faith in a particular religion. He further researches about God, if he feels the need for it. Who said God is necessary for living? Millions of Atheists on this planet are living proof that its wrong. Unlike Theists, Atheists are comfortable with the unknown. Instead of filling the gap with a theology or a Magical being, he simply says “I doesn’t know” and moves on with his life, enjoying every bit of time he has, watching movies, taking dates and doing all the wild things that every other human does. If you know me, you will know what a fun guy I am [*grin goes here*]. For an Atheist like me, to find the right sort of church or place of worship would require quite a bit of research and testing. Therefore I am able to think like a Theist (Maybe because I was a theist myself for 14 years), most theists are unable to think like their opposites.
I would really like to go on and explain about Morals since the need & no-need for worship & God came up in my blog, but I think I should reserve that for another day.
-Ruben The AnswerMan
This is a copy of “Christians don’t understand Atheist Quotes” in my website. Please feel free to copy/paste your comment. or If you want to say something private, contact me here.
Kinda’ scary isn’t it? Some people in the world really are so sheltered they simply don’t understand certain other points of view. I’m not saying their stupid, jus’ sheltered.
btw, u never said on the reply form that I need to supply a username and email.
[Reply]
Thats just one woman though. That doesn’t mean all theists don’t understand.
[Reply]
Sweet! I love respectful conversation about religion. Most of the time it’s one side trying to force their opinion’s down the other’s throat (And it definitely goes both ways, Athiests do it to Christians almost as much as Christians do it to Atheists).
However, in response to your last paragraph, I must say, one who is searching is not at all an atheist. The act of searching, even if you don’t know what for, can only happen with a belief that SOMETHING is out there. It’s still belief, it’s just not labeled yet. I would consider that more Agnostic than Atheistic. But thats just semantics, overall awesome conversation.
[Reply]
Once you have gotten past the part of them not understanding you have got to jump the hurdle of them not wanting to understand.
[Reply]
Christians are not Atheists.
Christians do not remove gods from a list. They reject the notion of naming and deifying everything you don’t understand. Only one God is necessary for the entire gamut of phenomena taken as one. We don’t remove Gods we merely reassign it all to God.
We believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. As a Mormon I believe they are separate primary members of the Government of Heaven, the Godhead.
It’s really sad you guys can’t come up with something not contorted.
[Reply]
Hello,
Might I suggest that some theists see that all Gods are faces of the same Divinity, and God reveals Him/Herself to different humans throughout time with different names and faces…Check out the Bah’ai faith for a better description, though I might suggest that ‘Satanists’/ego-centric and self-serving people aren’t quite in the same camp. Further still, Buddhists are acknowledging the Divine in a slightly different way, but most Buddhists I have had the pleasure of meeting have a peaceful message of compassion and love much the same as the true adherents to any of the world’s faiths. (By true adherents, I mean to say non-hypocrites, whereas I wouldn’t consider a ‘Christian’ or ‘Muslim’ a true adherent if they advocated or practice of violence against others for example—as both recognize the Divinity of the message of Moses and the 10 Commandments. I would suggest that most ethical atheists can also the the general benevolence of at least the “Don’t Kill, steal, or harm others” message of the Decalogue. All the best, and I hope you find inner peace in whatever manner suits you,
Geoff
[Reply]
Sorry, Intelitary, I have to disagree with you.
They do NOT reject the notion of naming what they do not understand. They simply assign it to a diety: to God if it be a “good” happenstance or to Satan if it be percieved as “evil.” Case in point, epilepsy. Should we have continued on the same course as Christians would have had us think, epilepsy would be nothing more than demonic possesion that could be cured by simply invoking the name fo Jesus. What you call a “miracle” is simply that which has not yet been explained, yet you would assign it as mystical.
Thank your “God” that we do not maintain this faulty and lazy view of the world around us, else instead of transfusions we would still be blood-letting.
[Reply]
TJM- focus. While pagans created a God for every single thing they cared about, monotheists only needed one.
We threw out the method, not the Gods.
[Reply]
Even if you like it or not, Inteletrary Millitangency, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!
So, you believe The Great Juju god of the mountain exists ?
-Ruben
Post Author.
[Reply]
Anyone got a lead or a source for a fav quote:
“Theology is a subject without an object.”
[Reply]
Intelitary Milligence: “TJM- focus. While pagans created a God for every single thing they cared about, monotheists only needed one.” But you’re not a monotheist. As you said previously, you’ve got this god/son/holy ghost trinity going. Additionally, this “god” character’s maiden name was Yahweh, and wasn’t the only god, but one of a pantheon of gods. Thus all the machismo about proving that he’s the biggest god of all - if there weren’t other gods around, why would the bible be full of such language:
“Let us make man in our image.” - Genesis 1:26
“And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” - Genesis 3:22
“Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?” - Exodus 15:11
“Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.” - Exodus 18:11
Well, I could put another twenty or thirty quotes in here, but you get the point: this Yahweh was just one amongst many, and everything from the creation story to the stories of Jews amongst other peoples shows it.
Oh, but then there’s the Book of Mormon, where, if you can get between the “exceeding” and the “it came to pass” overusage, you can find the gods of other cultures entirely. Look at 2 Nephi 24:29 - “Out of the serpent’s root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.” Dragons and cockatrices - the worshiped gods of various cults from the East Asia and Africa.
For a supposedly monotheistic religion, these Christian subcults sure do have a lot of gods.
[Reply]
From the original post, the line about “I am my own god” isn’t just for teenybopper atheists. There’s a real point in this: where theists externalize the human emotions, where theists turn their “good” traits into god and their “evil” traits into devils, the atheist realizes that it’s all merely reflections of humanity. Saying that you are your own god might look cool on some kid’s MySpace page, sure, but there’s more to it than that. It sounds egotistical, but in saying that you are your own god, you’ve reclaimed all the credit and the blame, all the good and the bad, all the traits and characteristics - if not the powers - of god as your own, all of which had been assigned to a fictional god long ago but have always truly belonged to humans.
Also, something else occurred to me which may or may not be on topic: it seems that many of us use the terms “worship” and “believe” synonymously. Are they really the same? Does anyone believe but not worship? Does anyone worship but not believe? Satanists, maybe? Despite all the Hollywood dramatization, they often don’t worship anything. Maybe it’s my history with Satanism, but I see the term “believe” as someone who acknowledges some sort of existence, while “worship” means that knees are bent, heads are bowed, and slave-like submission is given to god or gods. I bend my knee to no one, no how. (Bad knees.)
[Reply]
Having read this article, I would contend that Atheists do not understand Christians because, if they did, they certainly would be Christians themselves.
Before you get too angry, allow me to explain myself:
Christianity believes some very simple things that many people do not “understand.” In a logical order, here they are:
1. People sin. They mess up. All of us. We have all lied, stolen, hated, lusted - you get the idea.
2. God does not sin. By His very definition, He cannot. A sin is an act of free will that goes against the will of God. He can act any way other than Himself.
3. (Because of 1 & 2) people are separated from God. We call the suffering from this separation, in an eternal sense, Hell.
4. (This is where Christ comes in:) Jesus was man but fulfilled the person of God in that He did not sin. He died and rose again, ascending into heaven.
5. Through Christ, people also can defeat sin & death and rise into heaven. All that is required is faith.
That, in a quick review, is the doctrine of the entire Christian church - whether Catholic, Baptist, Methodist -whatever.
Notice that there are no claims of joy, or peace, or comfort. Christians have these things because they know the suffering they endure on earth is incomparable to the reward they will gain through Christ. Through Christ. Through Christ. [note emphasis]
As for the question of belief, I believe God exists because He does, not the converse. God does not exist because I believe He does. He would exist regardless of me. He would exist regardless of you. The great Juju god has nothing to do with it.
Speaking of gods, God has no need to prove to Himself that He is God. There is no more confusion there than you needing to prove to yourself than you are not a banana. He wants to prove to us that He is God because He is willing that none should perish. These other “gods” are either inventions of people or demons (for demons and angels exist) masquerading as “god.” Do not be fooled: demons have power and people often mistake that for God.
As for the issue of “worship” and “belief,” there is a tremendous difference. (”You believe there is one god? Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder! - James 2). To worship something is to hold it as the most important part of your life. All of us “worship” something - and not always the same thing. Not all Christians are always worshipping God. Everyone gets their priorities mixed up. But when you consider yourself higher than all other alternatives, you are, in fact, worshipping yourself, despite all arguments to the contrary. Everyone worships something, even if they refuse to believe it.
I suppose that thought concludes this dialog. I understand Athiests - I understand Atheism. I reject the notion that there is no God in light of the overwhelming evidence that there is one. I also (to an extent - I will never truly understand God) understand Christianity. You now know the truth. You have been told (see: above). The only question is what you do with it.
I hope to see you in heaven (whoever you are).
With grace,
Darth
[Reply]
I’ve got two questions burning on my mind:
To all you atheists out there,
if you say, you do not believe in God, don’t you think, you have to acknowledge, that there is a God not to believe in?
To all christians,
why do you always tell everybody to find jesus? as if he is lost! And if he is lost, why should we follow him?
Sincerely,
Your not religious, monotheistic,
Pavel
“And tell me what gives one the right to say their God is better than anybody else?
Don’t we all have a right to find a God for ourself?” - Ben Harper
[Reply]
sean reply on July 21st, 2008 10:44 pm:
amusing comment. questions that make people think.
i always say
“i hate humanity, but people are okay…”
[Reply]
I’m an atheist and didn’t understand the annotated joke at all. I’m pretty stupid, so maybe some people are just stupid too. Simple to me.
[Reply]
Alright, folks, I’m dragging it into the forum, it looks like this is going to be a hot topic.
http://thejesusmyth.com/tjmforum/index.php?topic=7.0
[Reply]
To Darthtingle,
If God is omniscient, meaning he has all knowledge, how can there be free will? For God to be all-knowing, he has to know the final outcome of everything, which means it is all predetermined. He already knows who will choose to believe. Nothing you can do can change this outcome. So where is the free will? For us to truly have free will, God could not be omniscient, and therefore not omnipotent, because the future would have to be uncertain to him.
[Reply]
Sometimes I think we all have a tendency to way over think and way over complicate things…
God is God and Man is Man.
[Reply]
To El Pav, in response to your question to atheists;
We do acknowledge that there are MANY gods not to believe in, as well as story characters such as Snow White, the Big Bad Wolf, Goldilocks, et al. They exist as thoughts in many people’s minds. Atheist just don’t believe they exist anywhere else.
[Reply]
sean reply on July 21st, 2008 10:48 pm:
i think he was just stating questions that would make one think,
it’s just a ploy to make one question if they are on the right side… if there even are sides. when you think about it all people theist or atheist, are just trying to understand their world. atheists know they can’t and theists think they can, but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re still on earth, still dying, and still fighting about who is right…
“i hate humanity, but people are okay…”-me
[Reply]
I’ll leave you with this quote from Douglas Adams.
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
Life is beautiful but why do people need some invisible man/thing to give it meaning? Most religious people never got a chance to live without a god. They were raised to believe a certain way and were never left to think for themselves. My parents sent me to bible school when I was little and we went to church every so often but they never tried to force me into anything. They never tried to scare me into believing by telling me I would burn forever in eternal hellfire. They let me look at the facts and make my own decision. My decision was that I just couldn’t believe in some magical being that loves us dearly but will cast us into a pit of hell because we don’t like his son. Also, all the contradictions in the bible make it almost laughable when reading it. Try giving up god for one day. Look at the world as it is. Not as some hypocritical men from hundreds of years ago would have you see it.
[Reply]
Intelitary, you totally missed his point. He’s not saying Christians look at a list of gods and decide which one they want to believe in, but it IS true that you do NOT believe in Zeuss and you do NOT believe in Thor or Odin for example. The real point here is that even theists know what it is like to NOT believe in something, even though their reasons are different than those of atheists.
[Reply]
“El Pav said,
August 6 2007
I’ve got two questions burning on my mind:
To all you atheists out there,
if you say, you do not believe in God, don’t you think, you have to acknowledge, that there is a God not to believe in”
Your comment made me think about children who don’t understand when their parents say, “There are no monsters. Monsters are not real.” Until a certain age the child doesn’t understand how there can be a word to describe something that doesn’t exist.
mo
[Reply]
monmoskeptical:
This was answered above, but let me add:
Do you believe that Vampires exist? How about Wolfmen? If not do they need to exist for you to not believe that they exist? Why are there words to describe these? You may or may not add Aliens, Faries or an excessively long list of gods that were at one time beilieved in by a huge number of people, I still don’t believe in them either
[Reply]
Monmo, ummmm, perhaps you deal with “special needs” children. My daughter is just two years old. On vacation, she got to stand near the world’s largest turkey, which was a sculpture. At first, she was quite scared of it. I took her away from it about 50 feet and explained to her that it was not a REAL turkey. She then went over to it, banged on it with her tiny hand exclaming, “It’s not real, daddy!” Certainly, she grasped the idea between a real bird and the fake. Oh, and she knows that Smurfs are not “real” too.
[Reply]
sean reply on July 21st, 2008 11:01 pm:
that has nothing to do with what he had said… his comment implied that children believe in monsters they can’t see, it makes it that much more scary, and possible. he stated they can’t understand that, and i think that’s true a child can’t understand why something he cannot see, not be real. but a giant turkey statue, it was made you most likely know who made it and if not can find out. that’s the difference, im not sure if this is what he ment but that’s how i understand it. it’s easier to disprove what you see, just like how you see vampires, werewolf’s, and “the smurfs” on t.v. all the time you know the actors behind them, you know who created the smurfs, but when your a child you don’t know what to think, you can’t see it, so you can’t disprove it, and can’t prove it. it’s the same with religion… you can’t disprove a religion, but you can’t say the invisible man doesn’t exist… HE’S INVISIBLE!
and what was that, saying he must work with “special needs” children!? grow the fuck up asshole, and stop using insults to win your battles, FAGGOT!
“i hate humanity, but people are okay…”
[Reply]
** …not peace, but a sword. **
Let an old atheist play theologian. I’ve so much more respect for religion than any of you, singly or collectively.
You who “believe” and you who don’t “believe” strike me as equally ignorant — I detect little to no historical, philosophical, or scientific acumen.
In the religion game, you’re rank amateurs — newbies, level sub-zero. In other words, your little tiffs are juvenile.
Clearly, many of you have Xian fundamentalists in mind. Despite their vociferousness, they do not represent a majority of Xians even in the U.S.
If you want to show that Western theism/deism is bullshit, you’ve much more work to do even when applying your strictures to Xians alone. And you non-fundie Xians, there’s a lot of solid theological BS to sling. Get to it!
Almost from the beginning of Xianity, the Jesus “story” received many divergent underpinnings. And, I’ll just give you the “orthodox” line –
1. Clearly, the Christological story given by Paul posits a transcendental world savior as early as 50 CE. Just how one meshes “Jesus” with “Ahura Mazda” is no easy trick. It took the “best minds” of their times 275 years to pull it off.
2. After 275 years of claim and counter-claim, inter-and-intra cult mayhem, the foundation of orthodoxy — the “creeds” defined what would pass holy muster. Yes check for that magic date 325 CE.
3. First Paul and then 350 years later Augustine with his doctrine of inherited sin still dominate mainstream Xian “understanding.”
It’s a long way from Origen and Augustine to C.S. Lewis and Tillich. Protecting central Xian claims from us “sons of darkness” is a 2,000 year old game.
Question: how much orthodoxy can be given up before Xianity ceases as belief structure? Paradoxically, fundies are weak, very weak because their stake in “orthodoxy” is so high. And RCs, you’ve no cause to get uppity.
Nonetheless, two hundred years of in-your-face atheism haven’t done much to dent the god-hypotheses promulgated by the so-called Big-3 monotheisms. Damn!
You’ve barely begun. Let fun reign!
Oh, “and come soon, Lord Jesus.”
1st-circle
[Reply]
1st-circle,
Wow.
Underwhelmed,
rivalarrival
[Reply]
1st Circle,
Thanks for the ad hominem; proving that even a fellow freethinker can fall into such logical fallacies. (Like how I added my own?)
To attack the respect that one may or may not have towards any subject without knowing the person in question is quite easy to do. Wrong, but easy. I, in fact, DO respect religion. What I do not respect is what religion has become; a perversion of its’ original form.
Let us take for example Christianity. It is quite obvious that you do have a good grasp of the history of that religion and so you should surely realize that today’s Christianity (in fact, even the Early Church’s form of it) is nothing more than a bastardization of earlier Mystery School teachings. They simply literalized that which was meant as allegorical stories. In fact, most of these stories were simply initiation stories. They came nowhere close to the “inner sanctum” of those various Schools’ teachings. It is even quite evident that Paul was a student of at least one of these Mystery Schools.
As far as aiming this site at fundamentalist Christians, you are certainly correct, to an extent. I, for one (as I cannot and will not speak for the other authers on this site), discount any religion that simply cannot operate under the scrutiny of logic,common sense and critical thinking. I simply have more experience with Christianity than any other religion (although I am delving into the world of Islam as well).
I would have to disagree with this statement. In the U.S., polls show that agnosticism and atheism are on the rise (ever so slowly, but rising nonetheless). The UK, where Christianity once thrived, is now overwhelmingly secular. So, there ARE strides being made.
[Reply]
I would like to provide a Buddhist perspective. As a Buddhist, I also wish to encourage all to pursue whatever path to peace, understanding, wisdom and happiness that truly works for them. This may or may not involve a god.
Buddhism is not theistic. The Buddha insisted repeatedly that he was no more than human. However, his teachings offer an alternative to the false dichotomy offered by the debate on this page. The false dichotomy is that one must choose between an anything-goes atheism in which happiness, wisdom, etc. are largely a matter of luck… and a no-questions-asked theism that gives orders that must be blindly obeyed for some imagined reward in the future.
If life is just getting by, paying the bills, using enough pain killers to soften the suffering, and buying a nice coffin at the end- well that is a pretty dry existence. To have the same life, but with a fervent hope for a realm of reward after death to make up for all of the suffering - that’s pretty sad, too.
The Buddha based his teachings on four central truths- 1) there is suffering,2) suffering has a cause, 3) by addressing the causes suffering can be ended, and 4)the path to ending suffering is through ethical conduct, paying deep attention, and developing wisdom. These kinds of ideas (Buddhist or otherwise), since they apply to THIS life, are available to theists and atheists alike. They do not presuppose whether or not one believes in a God. I find much agreement in this regard with my Christian, Jewish, atheist, Hindu, Humanist and Ethical Society friends.
We all want happiness. However, some atheists have no real plan…and it should be pretty obvious that accumulating belongings does not do the trick. Many Christians certainly know that just saying that one believes in God doesn’t do it, either. Happiness is not about what we have now or what we think we will have in the future; it is about how we relate to the present, moment after moment after moment. Happiness and peace are phenomena of the present, not of a remembered past or a future that almost never turns out like we think it will. The present is the only tense that is not just a thought - the only tense where anything actually happens.
So, I have an idea. It is based on the fact that every single human being lives with physical and mental pain, as well as the realization that, someday, all we have gathered will be lost, and we and everyone we know will die. Let’s give each other a break. Maybe stop attacking each other. Maybe we can even start supporting each other in our shared humanity. If you think about it, it is the only thing that really makes sense.
Peace,
Rick
[Reply]
Rick,
I’m sorry you see the issue as Anything Goes vs No Questions… That’s not how I see it it all.
First off, Atheism is a broad label - it covers an incredibly diverse set of viewpoints and opinions, just as Theism does. Buddhism could be considered a subset of Atheism - you yourself said “Buddhism is not theistic.”
Let me make this perfectly clear: Of all I have been exposed, Buddhism is the religious philosophy I respect the most. It is the most practical and least dogmatic of the formal, mainstream religions.
That said, I disagree with the central truths you have stated - Why should we focus on Suffering? Why not concentrate on Altruism? Why don’t we focus on acquiring the things that truly make us feel good - the smiles, the friendships, the communication, the gratitude?
Or for that matter, why not leave all these dogmatic ideas by the side of the road?
I agree, the accumulation of stuff (in and of itself) is insufficient for me. But I can’t really claim that it won’t be enough for somebody - I enjoy perusing collections - cars, bikes, airplanes, weapons, furniture, antiques… I have no desire to actually own a P-38 Lightning, but in seeing one, I feel a connection to the designers, the builders, the pilots, the ground crews, the victims of its weapons, and the families and loved ones of all of those people. The person who obtains the P-38 could be satisfied with knowledge that he has provided others with that sense of connection.
[Reply]
Rivalarrival,
Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post. You bring up issues that are worth addressing.
First, I purposefully described the false dichotomy as the path that “some” atheists follow. I did not intend to imply that no atheists have a plan. Sorry if you felt stereotyped. After all, as you say, I could be considered a type of atheist; to be sure, the lack of a god is the chief criticism that Buddhists hear from deists.
You hold a common, and understandable, misconception about the focus on suffering. The focus of the practice (the last 3 of the 4 “truths”)is freedom from suffering. This includes enjoying all of the things you mention. The smiles, friendship, gratitude, communication, connection and altruism that you value are indispensable to ending suffering.
Recognizing and understanding suffering in order to reduce it is like having to acknowledge that one is alcoholic before one can get sober. One cannot resolve a problem that is not recognized and understood. Let me give an example to illustrate the thinking. If one performs a kind deed for someone in need, he may yearn for praise and acknowledgment. This is suffering…postponing happiness for some imagined future. If this is seen and understood as it arises, the altruism truly becomes complete as the giver lets go of all expectations for “payment”. The satisfaction is enhanced; the suffering is reduced. Seeing the suffering is the opposite of the masochism often attributed to Buddhists. The recognition of suffering is a practical and necessary approach to ending it. Pretending it is not there is delusional. However, I’ll grant that leading with suffering is bad marketing.
I do not feel the need to debate your last paragraph because it seems that we are close to agreement about belongings. Buddhism does not deny the pleasure of material belonging, but it recognizes the inherent limits of such things. Ironicaly, an open, in-the-present awareness tends to heighten the pleasure of such things.
I have close to 2000 records and CD’s, build my own stereo equipment,and collect art. If I am attached to those things, a fire or thief could devastate my happiness. If I understand deeply that I will lose them some day anyway, their loss would not make me suffer. Which would you rationally choose in that scenario?
Thanks again for providing a place for sane and reasoned dialog about such things. I suspect that if our paths ever crossed, I would enjoy and learn from our conversations.
Rick
[Reply]
Oldman,
My point exactly.
I was trying to state that something does not have to exist to have a name.
mo
[Reply]
Rick,
Ah, I parsed “suffering” with different connotations - as you are using the term, I have no quarrel. The inclusion of “delayed gratification” as a subset of “suffering” illuminated the issue, as I was not including “frustration” as a subset of “suffering”.
You made an interesting analogy - recognizing that one has a drinking problem is the first step in mitigating or eliminating that problem.
But what of the people who *don’t* have a drinking problem? Sure, everyone suffers on some level or another. To use a different analogy, everyone is occasionally bitten by a mosquito. Those who are bitten two or three times in a year probably have no compelling reason to invest in insect repellent and mosquito netting.
All people suffer. Do all people suffer enough to justify the effort of the Buddhist philosophy? Honestly, I don’t know.
I am quite interested in a couple things you mentioned - criticism from Deists and masochism attributed to Buddhists… I had never considered these two viewpoints. The idea that Buddhism could be viewed as masochistic is completely alien to me.
Speaking of suffering, I’m beating my n00b brains out on a neurotic linux file server. I’m about to tear it a new port.
Dave
[Reply]
Ok, no offense, but the original argument posed here - all Theists are Atheists - is just stupid. You’ve defined Atheism in a way that pre-argues your conclusion. The idea that atheism is “[a] state that includes the lack of belief in at least one concept of divinity, god, or the supernatural” is something you’ve added simply to pre-justify your argument, though there is no truth in the statement at all. Rejecting a single god, or pantheon of gods is not atheism. You’re the only person who has ever defined it otherwise. Let’s take a look at a collection of standard dictionary definitions - http://www.onelook.com/?w=atheism&ls=a. Any matches? No? Hmmm. Got any real references (i.e. not some other random blogger) to support this definition? I’m going to go ahead and say you don’t. You’re not supporting rational discussion of issues between believers and non-believers. You’re continuing the propagation of distrust, confusion and hatred between the sides. It’s disgusting.
[Reply]
Greg,
First, point the finger at Stephen Robert, not AnswerMan. Robert provided a subjective interpretation of the term “Atheism” to concisely illuminate his point: That Theists and Atheists agree on every God-Concept but one.
Of course one can’t truly be both Atheist and Theist - the two are mutually exclusive. To explain this quotation to a theist, though, one is forced to adopt a subjective interpretation and not the etymological “Lacking Theism” definition of Atheism.
Second, pointing at a “Standard Dictionary Definition” or any other third-party reference is an appeal to authority. Unless all parties agree to the authority, this is a logical fallacy.
There are significant problems with many dictionary definitions. Most incorporate some sort of negative connotation in the “Standard” definitions. I personally have seen dictionaries with synonyms such as “Heathen” “Blasphemer” and “Evil” - Christian culture has clearly influenced the etymological denotation of the term.
“I’m going to go ahead and say you don’t” is a straw-man. Atheists can draw their own conclusions. We do not need you to do so for us.
Your conclusion is a hasty generalization, an ad hominem, and your earlier arguments do not adequately support it, as I have pointed out above.
Tagging out,
Rival
[Reply]
OK Rival, tagging in.
Although I enjoy the response from Greg as a theist’s point of view, your comment, Greg, proves the post. We are as atheistic about YOUR god as you are about OTHERS’ gods. We no more believe in your god than you believe in Mithra, Zeus, Attis or any one of the thousands of other gods that have been deified throughout the ages. Once you understand why you denounce those gods, you will better understand why we denounce yours.
[Reply]
Ok, you’re right that the original fault of the issue is with Robert, not the poster. But he is the one attempting to further an idea that I contend is vacuous. I have never heard of being an occasional atheist, or a partial atheist. Obviously there are people who consider it possible or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Atheism has always been rejection of all deities, that is where the word comes from. While there are of course the connotations that various dominant religions have given to the word that suggest it being evil, that doesn’t change the fact that all the word means is non-belief in any form of divine power. Is an appeal to authority a logical fallacy? Sure. But so is rejecting an otherwise commonly accepted definition of a term and creating a new one to give your idea validity. If you define atheism as rejection of any god, what good does that do? It attempts to blur the boundaries between what a theist is and what an atheist is. Can you now be both a theist and an atheist? What is the point?
I’m glad you’re familiar with various terms for logical fallacies and argumentative tactics. But I’ve not used any unfounded attacks on the person who made the comments. Creating a definition for a term that the general populace (excepting the Robert, and the commenters here) does agree on the meaning for absolutely does nothing to further the dialog between believers and non-believers except cloud the issue and incite the people who are believers by attempting to apply a term to them which they might find detestable, and of which the meaning, to them, is the exact definition of what they are not. Inventing a “subjective” definition to define something that you admit is a logical impossibility serves no purpose except to, as I said, propagate confusion and distrust.
Admin - Assuming that I have rejected those gods is presumptuous. I will agree that you are atheistic about my god, but only because my god is essentially an uber-god, of whom all the various monotheistic and polytheistic pantheons are just cultural interpretations and understandings of. I guess, using the new-and-improved definition of atheism, that makes me a true theist.
[Reply]
Greg–
I believe you are missing the point. Imagine all of the various deities of the collective memory of the planet lined up in a row. Now, when an atheist looks at them, and then realizes that they never existed, they all flash out of existence. When a Christian looks at them, all BUT ONE (or three, depending how much you believe in the trilogy…) flash out of existence. This is because with respect to all the gods in the history of the planet EXCEPT ONE, Christians are atheists… Our point is, that if you can find the basis to say that none of them ever existed, then how can you possibly rationalize the existence of your one god among so many? –Wolfish–
[Reply]
Greg,
“Obviously there are people who consider it possible or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.” - Call it poetic license. Robert is speaking figuratively and you are interpreting it literally.
I agree with you. Literally, there are no “partial” atheists - As Robert used the term to be synonymous with the generic “Non-Believer” - a subjective term that requires the existence of a concept of belief.
For the record, Atheism CANNOT be defined literally as anything inconsistent with “Lacking Theism”. With that definition, Atheism and Theism are mutually exclusive.
Grant someone poetic license, however, and all bets are off. Answerman’s “definition” is subjective, contextual - it is not valid outside of discussions relating to Stephen Robert’s quotation. Perhaps he should have been a little more clear on that point, but to be fair, the focus of his article was to demonstrate that Theists and Atheists don’t understand Atheist quotes in the same way.
I think your comments bear out Answerman’s conclusions.
Totin’ barges and liftin’ bales,
Rival
[Reply]
Who made who? Who made you?
[Reply]
Man made god in his image.
No “Who” made “Man”… What made Man?
According to the Bible, Man was simply wished into being. In the real world, Man is the product of an extremely long sequence of events.
Insignificantly Significant,
Rival
[Reply]
Don’t worry Coltaine. Your AC/DC refference did not go unnoticed.
[Reply]
Urg.
A. I fully agree with Greg, when one realizes that Atheist is a; more or less; slang term for Non-theist, it becomes obvious the quote should be something like “we are both skeptics, I am simply one level more radical in my skepticism”. I beg of you to avoid using the original quote as it is rather ignorant and can quickly lose a debate.
B. There is no reason an Atheist can not be a La Vay style Satanist. The Satanic Bible advocates an Atheistic life style and the idea of a god self, seeing as it makes no claims of omnipotences I, along with many, don’t see this as a religion but as a philosophy.
[Reply]
I read a comment from Pavel, and I must respond to it.
He asked why Christian’s say to find GOD, as if HE is lost. It is the human that is lost and in need of guidance….not at all GOD. When you get lost, whether it be on you’re way to somewhere, or lost from parent / spouse / boyfriend or girlfriend in a store…you need to FIND THEM. My God is not lost. Have you never heard…I once was lost but now am found”???? It is up to you to find him, and I do not like the idea of you thinking my Lord is lost. I cannot stand when people try to make Christian’s sound dumb, and that is the vibe that I get from you.
Thanks,
Sheana
[Reply]
Sheana,
You’re right, we shouldn’t try to make Christians sound dumb. They do a fair job of that themselves.
For an omniscient being, God sure seems to be a real dolt. “Let’s see, I’m going to stick the tree of knowledge in the garden, and tell them not to eat from it. Then, I’m going to put a snake in that garden to tell them to go ahead and eat. And I’m going to act all surprised when they listen to the snake instead of me. ”
Umm… DEE DEE-DEE!
Then, as an omnipotent being, I can’t figure out some way of forgiving humans for being idiots that’s less complicated than sacrificing myself to myself to forgive something I created myself for breaking rules I made myself. WTF?
How do you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Because you can maintain this farce for 2000 years?
In the course of human history, we’ve believed that the world was flat for about 90,000 years. We’ve known otherwise, intellectually, for about 1500 years, and it’s only been common knowledge that the world is a sphere for the past 500 years or so.
Idiotic beliefs die, there’s no sense in getting outraged that yours is currently on the chopping block.
[Reply]
In-keeping with my view that one must always take the gloves off when dealing with religionists, let me say that the comments posted by the Christianists here were predictable. They generally go from placating and patronizing one moment, to arrogant and dogmatic in the next. Pretty much like their religions do. All of it is predicated however, in ignorance.
It has been my experience that most religionists haven’t the slightest clue about what their talking about, particularly when it comes to their religion. They have no real working knowledge about their bibles and other holy books, nor of the history of death and destruction that their religions are responsible for and which follows them to this day. The blood remains on its hands. And to the extent that they do understand anything about their religion’s history, they’re prepared to cut it some slack for failing to live up to its own credo.
Cognitive Dissonance is an imperative for all religion followers. Without it, they’d go mad. So they spout their little storylines and homilies back at you constantly. But this is all that they have — the memories. They regurgitate them back when cornered into having to defend their silly musings and are incapable of a single independent thought of their own. These “beliefs” are the things that they’ve had inculcated into them since they were children in most instances. So the idea of rejecting these fairy tales goes to the very essence of their being. And it scares the crap out of them. They scare easily though. Ignorance will do that to you, I hear.
As for the young woman referenced in this thread, her comment that “I believe that I know” underscores the essence of her difficulties in understanding atheism. She “believes” that she knows. But what does she “know that she knows?” Belief in this instance is not something tangible, nor based upon anything solid — like facts. She’s convinced herself, for whatever reasons, that she knows and sees something that no one else can unless they’re washed in the blood of Jeebus. And she calls this religion. Fine. But just because YOU believe it, doesn’t make it so. No matter how many times you say it. No matter how loud you say it. And no matter how many of you that there are saying it. The tyranny of the majority is still tyrannical. And large groups of people, even whole worlds can be WRONG in their beliefs.
For centuries, Christians have used this same argument to press their case. And as the one poster who was indignant that her Jeebus was considered lost, I agree. Its not Jeebus, its you who is lost. Lost in a world of your own creation where facts aren’t necessary. Although I must say that if you truly had the courage of your convictions, you’d drop everything that science has brought you and go somewhere to live your life in accordance with your religious beliefs. Go back to your donkeys and mud houses. That would show your sincerity beyond mere words. Oh, and on that point of yours about sin? Tell me, what’s makes a sin? Why is it that when your god kills people its not a sin, but it becomes a sin when humans do it? Why is it that jealousy and envy is a sin when humans do it, but its okay for your god to be this way? Oh, right. That’s the Invisible Sky Buddy. He can do anything he damn well pleases. HE answers to no one. Right.
Well, I’ve grown weary of arguing with religious kooks over the years. Those who use every thing that science has brought them, but refuse to let go of the fairy stories. They cling to their fairy tales like the Peanuts character Linus holds on tightly to his blankie. I’d like to be the kind of person that has more patience with the religionists like many of my fellow compatriots here, but I can’t. Because its been my experience that when you try to be civil with religionists, you’ll only live to regret it.
And for the religionist posters who at least had the gumption to click this link to see what the these damnable atheists are talking about, I commend you on your courage. However, you can keep the dogma and pat answers though. We’ve heard them all before. They’ve been around for millennia and haven’t changed in the slightest. Although we keep hoping some of you will evolve, I’ve reluctantly concluded that this isn’t the case. But as evolutionary science has shown, the species that fails to adapt, will eventually become extinct. This is my only consolation.
So since it is unlikely that an atheist will ever convince a religionist of the error in their thinking, then maybe you’ll take heed to the words from your own holy book:
Proverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”
[Reply]