BloodRider Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Atheism may be a relief but "Athiests don't have no songs": http://youtu.be/7KMQ_7OFtiY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHmTqoLjlXo Although to be honest, that song is more areligious and pro-deist than atheist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckwheat Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Some really fun songs here. Hozier - Take Me to ChurchVampire Weekend - Unbelievers (NSFW).I like these, quite catchy. I have only heard Onion's before, but never actually listened to they lyrics. Good songs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 It's another attractive belief system that basically falls down for me because I quite simply can't believe in it. Even if I can accept a universal mind or collective (un)conscious the question would still be "so what?" I either have to accept a further step that it is somehow judging us, or that a metaphysical karma exists (as opposed to a more concrete material karma like principal*) or why else should I actually listen to what the faith has to say, rather than just saying "Yeah I guess the universe has a mind" and getting on with my life. Unless I believe in the immaterial / spiritual side of it, it has no effect on my life. And asking me to believe in that is akin to asking me to believe in an Abrahamic God or a Polytheistic pool of deities. Even if I wanted to, I don't believe, so I can't believe. *What I mean by a physical karma is more that by being a nice person, other people tend to be more likely to help you out. When that asshole who is rude to the waiters, never tips and leaves a mess is £1 short and gets told "Sorry, you can't get lunch here today then!" while the nice customer is told "Don't worry about it, give us the other £1 tomorrow!" that's real, physical, concrete karma that relies on nothing more than human nature / interaction. Plus each good act you do makes someone else's day a bit nicer, and makes them more likely to do good to others, which ultimately makes the world better for everyone. So a watered down version of karma exists even without anything supernatural. hmm...I'm starting to think that my introduction to and engagement with Buddhism might be on the unique side. I don't talk to people about it in the real world outside of "academic" discussion (so not in relation to anything personal), and I think I took for granted that my (personal) interaction with it would be similar to others with exposure to it, which seems not to be the case. These metaphysical issues have definitely been downplayed-- at least, not considered to be the fundamental points, and certainly not primary to understanding-- in my experience with it. I don't "believe" in reincarnation or karma or anything like that, and the condition of "belief" is very antithetical to what I've been taught of Buddhist thought in the first place. Since I think I might be coming from this a little differently with a focus unconcerned with the metaphysical terminology that keeps arising, I just want to quickly clarify what I'd found compelling and compatible with atheism. The draw for me is that it's foremost a mental discipline-- a mental discipline that helps you make sense of the big picture. Particularly in how I came to it, it was taught that you're not to take anything on faith or a leap or just "believe," but work through principles and examine your premises to "see." At the risk of overly glossing this, here's a small, simple example of what I mean. Take this comment: If i started believing in an afterlife my quest for immortality might be relieved. This seems to be a fairly common sentiment I think-- that we strive for some sense of permanence, and the major religions would appear to relieve that desire in some form of everlasting afterlife. If only there was a god we could experience a form of immortality, because permanence is a desirable state, right? So instead, the Buddhist lens would have you question whether venerating a sense of permanence is "correct" in the first place, "correct" in terms of coming to grips with permanence as an illusion, as well as whether clinging to said illusion leads to happiness (or "contentment"). It's not asking you to take a leap of faith in some eternal godly bliss machine to satisfy your desire for permanence, but challenging your assumption that immortality is something to desire in the first place. Of course Buddhism is not the only way to reframe your mindset like this, so I hope I don't seem like I'm suggesting it as such or anything. But I hope this clarifies a little why I see it as compatible enough with lack of belief and atheism to warrant asking about it here. If, as it seems like it's the case, one's engagement with it has emphasized "belief" in karma and those quasi-metaphysical issues, then it definitely follows that Buddhism would seem incompatible, useless and probably irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crom Dubh Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Atheists don't have songs? Some easy listening And some slow songs for enjoyment at atheist church, or whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocksniffer Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 i have been a confirmed atheist for many decades but i find this is my favorite song of all time and it supports the opposing position...because if there is a devil doesn't it follow there is a god... Not sure about atheism, but both sphinxes and unicorns can be reliefs. this is why i am the most dedicated and forever loyal of your servants my beloved Queen <lifts leg in salute> Hey, my mother in law had her cataracts fixed years ago. I was sold!...until she called me yesterday and told me that she needed glasses again. Apparently, miracles just don't have the staying power they once did. :lmao: and i am sure it is Pod's fault.... :smoking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj4iy Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 i have been a confirmed atheist for many decades but i find this is my favorite song of all time and it supports the opposing position...because if there is a devil doesn't it follow there is a god... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDm_ZHyYTrg One of my all-time favorites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 i have been a confirmed atheist for many decades but i find this is my favorite song of all time and it supports the opposing position...because if there is a devil doesn't it follow there is a god... "Don't you know there ain't no devil? There's just god when he's drunk" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 BR,Okay. Personally, I think we're all about equally smug most of the time so any "superiority" is undercut immediately.(And I can't read the inviso-text on my iPhone) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocksniffer Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDm_ZHyYTrgOne of my all-time favorites. yes this one is a goodie...though long haired country boy is my fav cdb song... "Don't you know there ain't no devil? There's just god when he's drunk" a drunken god and a "Chocolate Jesus" sounds like my kinda religion... though this song almost made me a believer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRider Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 BR,Okay. Personally, I think we're all about equally smug most of the time so any "superiority" is undercut immediately.(And I can't read the inviso-text on my iPhone)The hover text sez: 'But you're using that same tactic to try to feel superior to me, too!' 'Sorry, that accusation expires after one use per conversation.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Oh man, yeah. One thing I gotta give religions credit for us some great freaking music. Fuck that bland, hollow "contemporary Christian rock/pop" bullshit, I'm talking real, passionate, soulful stuff.From the gospel singing folk of Panola county, MO to some of the heavenly harmonies in reggae, that god can inspire some beautiful art.But of course, Satan's really the go-to guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crom Dubh Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Oh man, yeah. One thing I gotta give religions credit for us some great freaking music. Fuck that bland, hollow "contemporary Christian rock/pop" bullshit, I'm talking real, passionate, soulful stuff.From the gospel singing folk of Panola county, MO to some of the heavenly harmonies in reggae, that god can inspire some beautiful art.But of course, Satan's really the go-to guySatan, you say? To hell with the devil! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Satan, you say? !Heh. Sorry, no one shreds like Satan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocksniffer Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Heh. Sorry, no one shreds like Satan unless it is Black Satans.... :smoking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonity Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 hmm...I'm starting to think that my introduction to and engagement with Buddhism might be on the unique side. I don't talk to people about it in the real world outside of "academic" discussion (so not in relation to anything personal), and I think I took for granted that my (personal) interaction with it would be similar to others with exposure to it, which seems not to be the case. These metaphysical issues have definitely been downplayed-- at least, not considered to be the fundamental points, and certainly not primary to understanding-- in my experience with it. I don't "believe" in reincarnation or karma or anything like that, and the condition of "belief" is very antithetical to what I've been taught of Buddhist thought in the first place. Since I think I might be coming from this a little differently with a focus unconcerned with the metaphysical terminology that keeps arising, I just want to quickly clarify what I'd found compelling and compatible with atheism. The draw for me is that it's foremost a mental discipline-- a mental discipline that helps you make sense of the big picture. Particularly in how I came to it, it was taught that you're not to take anything on faith or a leap or just "believe," but work through principles and examine your premises to "see." At the risk of overly glossing this, here's a small, simple example of what I mean. Take this comment: This seems to be a fairly common sentiment I think-- that we strive for some sense of permanence, and the major religions would appear to relieve that desire in some form of everlasting afterlife. If only there was a god we could experience a form of immortality, because permanence is a desirable state, right? So instead, the Buddhist lens would have you question whether venerating a sense of permanence is "correct" in the first place, "correct" in terms of coming to grips with permanence as an illusion, as well as whether clinging to said illusion leads to happiness (or "contentment"). It's not asking you to take a leap of faith in some eternal godly bliss machine to satisfy your desire for permanence, but challenging your assumption that immortality is something to desire in the first place. Of course Buddhism is not the only way to reframe your mindset like this, so I hope I don't seem like I'm suggesting it as such or anything. But I hope this clarifies a little why I see it as compatible enough with lack of belief and atheism to warrant asking about it here. If, as it seems like it's the case, one's engagement with it has emphasized "belief" in karma and those quasi-metaphysical issues, then it definitely follows that Buddhism would seem incompatible, useless and probably irrelevant. I don't want to seem like that asshole picking at your religion or trying to disprove it here, but I still don't really "get" it. You say you don't "believe" in karma and reincarnation because blind belief is antithetical to your experience of Buddhism in the first place. Are you saying you don't, on balance and after reflection, accept them as truths, or that you accept them as possibilities, or that after you worked your way through it you accept karma and reincarnation as a knowledge rather than a belief? Those "believe" quotes leave it rather vague as to if you are taking the word believe itself out of the equation or simply stating that they aren't part of your personal buddhism. And again by personal buddhism i'm not mocking you or buddhism, we all make our own personal versions of any belief systems, even two twin brothers who grew up to be monks in the same monastry would have separate, different "personal buddhisms" however similar the inputs, or however similar their shared beliefs/knowledge/whatever seemed to an outsider. And if you aren't (as I suspect based on your other replies) believing in reincarnation/karma, or indeed anything spiritual as such, then where does the impetus to follow the noble eightfold path come from? Is it something you do purely for yourself because you feel you are better for it? That I can understand I guess. Reading an admittedly very basic overview of buddhist thought and stripping away metaphysical aspects such as reincarnation or karma, it seems buddhism comes down to: Dukkha is a catchall word for "internal bads", like physical and mental suffering, stress, anxiety and that general urge for more Buddhism is about recognizing that Dukkha exists, trying to find the root causes of it, discovering that it can be beaten / stopped / destroyed, then actually doing so. So it's a thought system where we try to discover why we hurt, then to stop ourselves from hurting. I guess that even the biggest skeptic can see the value in that, without any outside impetus. At that point, the paths become a guide on how to heal yourself / prevent your own suffering, as well as making it easier for others too. Again, I can buy that I guess. Then you have the precepts of Buddhist morals. Again some of these I can buy, while others, as a skeptic, seem to only make sense from a spiritual perspective? To refrain from taking life (non-violence towards sentient life forms); I can't see how from a non spiritual angle this one makes sense. Non violence towards people, sure, but not taking life as in vegetarianism as a basic precept? I can't see how that affects the self without a spiritual. To refrain from taking that which is not given (not committing theft); This is fine. Fits in with a general humanist moral system. To refrain from sensual (including sexual) misconduct; Woah. The fly in the ointment here. Depending what sensual and sexual misconduct is, of course. If "misconduct" means breaking "safe, sane and consentual" then sure, but if sticking things in my ass is a misconduct then there better be a spiritual element here, or where does this come from? To refrain from lying (speaking truth always); Again I can get this one. I couldn't LIVE it, but I can conceptually GET it as an internal thing. To refrain from intoxicants which lead to loss of mindfulness (specifically, drugs and alcohol). While I'm a big fan of "in moderation", I can get this as a personal non spiritual thing too. To refrain from eating at the wrong time (eat only from sunrise to noon); Medically dodgy, so if there isn't a spiritual impetus or if it isn't changed to "eat in a healthy way, no midnight snacks" then I can't see how it works. To refrain from dancing and playing music, wearing jewelry and cosmetics, attending shows and other performances; Why? Without a spiritual, how does avoiding joy make one happier? To refrain from using high or luxurious seats and bedding. Maybe this is about "don't let your possessions own you"? But it goes a bit far unless there's a spiritual element. I can see how a massively edited version could be used simply for oneself. Again, please don't take this as an attack. It's more a request for understanding. And finally, if you are Buddhist but ignore karma and reincarnation and anything non-material / supernatural, aren't you kinda throwing away a HUGE part of buddhism? Wouldn't that be a bit like being "Christian, but I only follow Jesus the man, not the son of god, and don't believe in god or the supernatural, but his teachings were good so I follow them"? I'm not sure I get how buddhism works without things that I'd classify as straight up supernatural and demanding faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 "Christian, but I only follow Jesus the man, not the son of god, and don't believe in god or the supernatural, but his teachings were good so I follow them"? This is almost precisely what Thomas Jefferson said, so much so that he published a redacted "Jefferson Bible" with all of the hocus-pocus removed. Most of the U.S. "Founding Fathers" were Deists of this variety, as much as modern fundies would like us to believe otherwise... ETA: to be fair, the Deists (and a lot of their Unitarian descendents) believe in a God that is a 100% non-interventionist demiurge, a "clockmaker god" in other words. Though this loses a lot of its elegance when you realise modern physics disallows a deterministic outcome from first conditions, that is, the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics means that the current state of the universe cannot be the inevitable unfolding of a pre-concieved design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonity Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 This is almost precisely what Thomas Jefferson said, so much so that he published a redacted "Jefferson Bible" with all of the hocus-pocus removed. Most of the U.S. "Founding Fathers" were Deists of this variety, as much as modern fundies would like us to believe otherwise... They were still Deists and not atheists following a purely ethical teacher though, weren't they? And even then I'd question if they were "Christian" or something else entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonity Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I guess also what I was trying to get at is that it seems to me that while buddhism doesn't have gods, it does have belief in the spiritual / supernatural, and that seems to me at least to be intrinsic to the entire thing. Without reincarnation and karma, I don't see how it works. And I'd suggest that most people who identify as Atheist are also Aspiritual in nature. Ancestor worship can equally be atheist in strict terms, but if one is believing in and worshiping the ghosts of those who went before us, despite a lack of god figure or creator, there's still something there that's very far from Atheism as we use it, rather than as a strict linguistic term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 I guess also what I was trying to get at is that it seems to me that while buddhism doesn't have gods, it does have belief in the spiritual / supernatural, and that seems to me at least to be intrinsic to the entire thing. Without reincarnation and karma, I don't see how it works. I agree with this. I don't think reincarnation and karma are necessary to having an essentially Buddhist outlook/ practicing Buddhism, though. If you allow that it is true that all sentient beings are one, all that is required is recognition of this truth in order to act in away that is not harmful to others (because they are not really others). A system of rewards and punishments isn't necessary. Or if you like, the reward is the present state of mind, not the promise of being reincarnated as something better. ETA: I don't know if you saw my ETA above about Deism, but there are some who would call it a socially acceptable form of Atheism that pays lip service to a deity while rendering him/it totally irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonity Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 I agree with this. I don't think reincarnation and karma are necessary to having an essentially Buddhist outlook/ practicing Buddhism, though. If you allow that it is true that all sentient beings are one, all that is required is recognition of this truth in order to act in away that is not harmful to others (because they are not really others). A system of rewards and punishments isn't necessary. Or if you like, the reward is the present state of mind, not the promise of being reincarnated as something better. ETA: I don't know if you saw my ETA above about Deism, but there are some who would call it a socially acceptable form of Atheism that pays lip service to a deity while rendering him/it totally irrelevant. Yeah I missed your edit. And yeah, that does sound like lip service and atheist in all but name. And a bunch of Jesus' teachings are pretty good even taken as just coming from a man. I can be down with "do unto others" and the like. Shame his churches can't! (edit: and while yeah, it falls apart with quantum. they didn't have that at the time, so now they'd probably change it to a non interventionist god who provided the initial spark then fucked off.) On the all are one thing, that in itself seems hugely belief based / spiritual. A lot of the teachings make sense from a purely selfish perspective, and even more from a more humanist "We only have one life, try to make it nice for everyone" approach, but all are one is one of the really spiritual / non material beliefs, along side reincarnation, karma and not dancing to music or going to shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.