Anti-Theism: Why I Do Not Wish For a God

[jonman122]

the laws of society are in place so as to make it not fall apart, the laws of religion are put in place so people will not leave the religion and have it fall apart as well. the only difference is, society does not have faith in something it cannot prove, it only lives to continue to live and to grow and progress. religion survives to put faith in the mind and make you a slave to the ideals of a book that was written by men a couple of thousand years ago.

what is the penalty for apostacy in islam?
how about for apostacy to your society?

 

[Tathagata]

theist people also have to be self-determined. maybe you're underestimating devotion here.

Theists are obliged to follow all the hundreds of laws put forth by holy scripture or face an eternity in Hell. If they sincerely believe in divine reward and punishment, then they will let holy commandment and laws dictate their life.

besides i don't understand how being self-determined is equal freedom. i don't wish to get into free will issue either. but i don't understand what you understand from freedom. you can be self-determined but your stand would not provide you whatever you want or need whenever you ask for it.

you'd still be dependent on conditions, other people, time ...etc. so what kind of freedom would that be exactly?

Being dependent or determined by your environment is different. The problem is when someone else feels they can control or dictate someone else's life. Freedom is autonomy and self-determination as opposed to determined by someone else.

you feel more free? are we really talking about feelings? is freedom a feeling? rather than something to feel, i consider freedom something "to be".

Everything starts with the mind. If your mind is free, you are free.

nobody needs fear. human, by his nature and in his pure form, is a fearless creature.

I agree, but then religion injects fear into people because of a wrathful God, judgment, and threats of eternal punishment.

in general we fear when we think in loops and thinking in loops is not religion; it is most likely a disease of mind; a very bad habit.

The Abrahamic God rewards those who fear him:

"But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall." - Malachi 4:2

i wonder .. don't you think laws of government dictate your life? do you think they are acceptable? if yes, why being dictated by other humans is acceptable? they are people like you and obviously you are not the one who wrote all the laws

Actually, I don't think that goverment laws or being dictated by humans is acceptable. I'm essentially an Anarchist, so your point here doesn't apply to me.

This sums up my whole position here: "All freedom is our natural and eternal right, not the gift of some dark suit or uniform to decide if it's gonna give it to us or not." - David Icke


.

 

[Breathe]

Anti-Theism is part of my philosophy.

And what philosophy, exactly, is that?

Please, don't say anti-theism is part of Buddhist philosophy. Your interpretation, perhaps, but not all.

I have met my fair share of Buddhists from the East who do worship deities, such as a couple of Thai people who worship Ganesha. There are others who worship the bodhisattvas Tara, Amitabha and imbue them with godlike powers.

Short of the No True Scotsman fallacy or questioning how well they follow Buddhism, it would be objectionable to say they are following their religion wrong.

Plus: what is a god? This needs to be asked first of all before this discussion can really go very far. Are we talking of an Abrahamic style, a pantheistic one, panentheistic, deistic, Brahman? Do you consider the bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhism to be imbued with godlike qualities? Do you consider their worship to valid?


Just my $0.02.

 

[sandandfoam]

the laws of society are in place so as to make it not fall apart,

I admire your faith.
Laws are there to maintain the status quo.

 

[sandandfoam]

Theists are obliged to follow all the hundreds of laws put forth by holy scripture or face an eternity in Hell. If they sincerely believe in divine reward and punishment, then they will let holy commandment and laws dictate their life.

Throwing around meaningless generalisations indicates you are primarily in a dialogue with yourself. That's fine.

 

[Breathe]

I agree with you Stephen.

I don't spend my time following hundreds of laws put forth by a holy scripture or facing an eternity in Hell, at all. I would not follow such an entity.


In fact, I actually try to live my life in accordance with the Five Noble Precepts, Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path (although I don't regard Wrong View as applying to a self (I have a different view of self and not-self) or Deity), but I ultimately try to live my life not by lots of laws, but by ahimsa, non-injury, as much as possible.

 

[Tathagata]

And what philosophy, exactly, is that?

Please, don't say anti-theism is part of Buddhist philosophy.

My philosophy is the sum of all the philosophies that I adhere to. Buddhism is my primary philosophy, but is complimented by philosophers/thinkers like Martin Heidegger, J. Krishnamurti, Hitchens, etc.

Your interpretation, perhaps, but not all.

It's not my interpretation. Scripture is quite clear.

I have met my fair share of Buddhists from the East who do worship deities, such as a couple of Thai people who worship Ganesha. There are others who worship the bodhisattvas Tara, Amitabha and imbue them with godlike powers.

It doesn't matter what Buddhists believe or worship. These beliefs seem to have merged with Buddhism, but they don't really have much basis in Buddhist scripture.

Buddha [Kevaddha Sutta]: "Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as: ... worshipping Great Brahma [God]...promising gifts to devas in return for favors; fulfilling such promises; ...offering sacrificial fires ... he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these."

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "This position rises the question of a first cause which the philosophers meet by asserting that their first cause, God and the primal elements, are un-born and un-annihilate; which position is without evidence and is irrational.”

(Also, refer to the Buddha quote in the first post of the thread.)

Short of the No True Scotsman fallacy or questioning how well they follow Buddhism, it would be objectionable to say they are following their religion wrong.

They can practice however they'd like and they are certainly following their sect or version properly because they defined it. That's fine. Also, as I understand it, worship means something different to Buddhists in the East than it does to Theists in the West. Worship is more of a sign of respect and reverence for beings who have attained Enlightenment rather than bowing down to a being who is superior and more powerful as seen in Abrahamic religions.

Plus: what is a god? This needs to be asked first of all before this discussion can really go very far. Are we talking of an Abrahamic style, a pantheistic one, panentheistic, deistic, Brahman?

Buddha dismissed all notions of God.

Buddha [Lankavatara Sutra]: "All such notions [of a]...personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."

Do you consider the bodhisattvas of Mahayana Buddhism to be imbued with godlike qualities? Do you consider their worship to valid?

Nope.

Just my $0.02.

Thanks for the input.

.

 

[jonman122]

there is no true status quo in society, it is changing and evolving with new laws and tenants even as we speak. Some of them are incredibly stupid and detrimental to the development of society, but some are good and help maintain order and stop everyone from murdering each other or driving so fast they all crash constantly. with no speed regulations, who do you think would drive slow? they'd be pushed off the road.

religion is different in that its laws are not changing, its tenants do not change, you must fear god and believe in him and only him (the abrahamic god that is) or you will face his eternal wrath, which seems much greater (as he killed millions in the bible while satan killed some negligable number like 6) than his eternal kindness.

to answer myself, the pentalty for apostacy in islam in the quran is death.
in society, you smell funny and your penalty is everyone looks at you funny because you stink and live in your mothers basement.

 

[Tathagata]

Throwing around meaningless generalisations indicates you are primarily in a dialogue with yourself. That's fine.

"If you will not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;" - Deuteronomy 28:58

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." - Jesus (Matthew 5:17-20)


.

 

[Onkara]

Present to me your concept of God and I'll likely reject it. In my life, I have believed in the Christian God, the Deist God, and the Pantheist God which at this point, I reject them all.


.

But "Who" is doing the rejecting?

 

[Madhuri]

You haven't responded to my posts

 

[Breathe]

It's not my interpretation. Scripture is quite clear.

Scripture also calls Buddha the teacher of "gods" (devas) and men and detail stories about Buddha speaking with Brahma and Indra; and the story goes that when Buddha left his palace the gods muffled his horses' hooves.

<<snip>> Worship is more of a sign of respect and reverence for beings who have attained Enlightenment rather than bowing down to a being who is superior and more powerful as seen in Abrahamic religions.

Preaching to the choir here, brother, I know all this stuff.

Speaking of soul, to steal from Wiki's article on anatta;

In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self. It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.​

Nope.

So why, may I ask, do you consider Mahayana as one of the true religions?

 

[Breathe]

You haven't responded to my posts

I noticed that.

*HUGS*​

 

[Tathagata]

You haven't responded to my posts

Don't worry, I didn't forget.

But see, you seem to be referring to specific God concepts. Not all God concepts incorporate a judgemental God with commandments.

I agree, but I would say the majority believe in the personal God who judges and listens to prayers.

Not all God concepts accept that God created the individual. As a panentheistic Hindu, I do not believe in any of the above. And yet I still believe in a God.

I myself used to be New Age (heavily influenced by Hinduism) as well as a Pantheist. But the problem with Pantheism is that it can hardly be considered a "Theism" because as the philosopher Coleridge pointed out "everything God, and no God, are identical positions."

You say you believe in the Panentheistic God (which I think is more of a personal being than the Pantheist God), so can you have a relationship with this God or communicate to Brahman? If not, it's not really something that can be considered "God," except in a metaphorical way. I don't think impersonal forces can be called "God " simply because God itself implies personification.


.

 

[Madhuri]

Don't worry, I didn't forget.

You say you believe in the Panentheistic God (which I think is more of a personal being than the Pantheist God), so can you have a relationship with this God or communicate to Brahman? If not, it's not really something that can be considered "God," except in a metaphorical way. I don't think impersonal forces can be called "God " simply because God itself implies personification.

My concept of God incorporates both personal (Bhagavan) and impersonal (Brahman). Panentheism sees the individual as both part of yet distinct from God.

 

[Tathagata]

Scripture also calls Buddha the teacher of "gods" (devas) and men and detail stories about Buddha speaking with Brahma and Indra; and the story goes that when Buddha left his palace the gods muffled his horses' hooves.

Buddhist scripture doesn't use the word "gods." It uses the word "devas" which the West misunderstands as "gods." Not to mention, if it were understood as "gods" in the Western sense, that would be placing Buddha, a mere human being above the gods. Doesn't that degrade the importance of the gods? Sure does.

In the Kevaddha Sutta, Buddha told a story of a bikkhu who seeked the answers from the devas, from higher devas, and eventually reached the Great Brahma who described himself as the all-powerful, all-knowing, creator of all. He didn't know the answer and said the bikkhu acted wrongly, incorrectly because he bypassed the Blessed One for the answer. This was narrated by Buddha and the moral of the story is that these great and almighty gods are not great and simply delusional (if Brahma really was all-knowing as he claimed, he would've known the answer).

snip

I take it you concede that Buddha was anti-theist then. The passages from scripture are quite clear.

Speaking of soul, to steal from Wiki's article on anatta;

In Samyutta Nikaya (SN) 4.400, Gautama Buddha was asked if there “was no soul (natthatta)”, which it is conventionally considered to be equivalent to Nihilism (ucchedavada). The Buddha himself has said: “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering, and its ending.” The early Suttas see annihilationism, which the Buddha equated with denial of a Self, as tied up with belief in a Self. It is seen as arising due to conceiving a Self in some sort of relationship to the personality-factors. It is thus rooted in the 'I am' attitude; even the attitude 'I do not exist' arises from a preoccupation with 'I'.​

Umm, ok. lol. I never really contended you on this point.
​

So why, may I ask, do you consider Mahayana as one of the true religions?

For one, because I go by the Mahayana Sutras a lot, though not all of them. I particularly go by the Prajnaparamita Sutras and Lankavatara Sutras.

Also, the founder of Mahayana Buddhism said this:

"The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions
Therefore the wise man may not rely on gods."
-- Nagarjuna


.

 

[Breathe]

Buddhist scripture doesn't use the word "gods." It uses the word "devas" which the West misunderstands as "gods."

I know, hence my use of quotation marks.

I take it you concede that Buddha was anti-theist then.

No, I do not think Buddha was anti-theist. At all, although I do see him as opposing blind faith, exclusionism, egotism, and spiritual laziness by expecting Divine/divine forces to "help" (read: do it for) the person.

Even if Buddha was an anti-theist; I do not see any reason for Buddhism being inherently anti-theistic, nor anything wrong with the worship of the deities. As I said, I have met people who are Buddhists who worship (not just venerate, worship) God, gods and the bodhisattvas to help them in life.

There is a well known quote, supposedly from Buddha: "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." (If it is from Buddha, can you provide a reference for it for me, please?)

For one, because I go by the Mahayana Sutras a lot, though not all of them. I particularly go by the Prajnaparamita Sutras and Lankavatara Sutras.

I see.

Do you consider this to be a form of cherry-picking? If no, may I ask why?

 

[Penumbra]

Unlike some Atheists, I do not wish for there to be a God nor do I disbelieve merely because there's not enough evidence to support it. Rather, I don't think God gives life more meaning and I don't think God is desirable. Many think that God solves a lot of problems and answers a lot of questions, but a Universe with God is not philosophically superior nor does it solve any existential problems. (To be clear, these are my reasons why I don't wish for a God, not the reasons why I disbelieve God.)

Belief in God can be detrimental to a person instead of beneficial and the actual existence of God would make life impossible to live.

Christopher Hitchens: "[Belief in God] is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you - who must, indeed, subject you - to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life - I say, of your life - before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead."

The Buddha: "Is it true that you hold that whatever a person experiences is all caused by a Supreme Being's act of creation? Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. A person is a thief, unchaste, a liar, a divisive speaker, a harsh speaker, an idle chatterer, greedy, malicious, a holder of wrong views because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. When one falls back on creation by a Supreme Being as being essential, there is no desire [motivation], no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views." [Tittha Sutta]

"Is it possible to live life without God? It is ONLY possible to live life without God." - Osho (Indian Philosopher)

"Either God can exist or freedom. Both cannot exist together." - Osho

"If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." - Mikhail Bakunin



*P.S. Please don't feel threatened or offended! This is a place to debate and share ideas!

*Edit: By the way, this post is not an argument. This is to start discussion at which point, THEN I will present refutations and arguments to the responders.

.

This seems to refer to a specific type of god.

I agree that the type of god that sits in the sky as an angry old man judging everyone and preparing to torture them after they die for mistakes or for not believing in the right god concept is not desirable at all. To some extent I have sympathy for those that believe as such.

But not all depictions of god are like that. This is found often in the Abrahamic faiths, and only in a subset of believers at that. It seems to exist in some extent in other religions as well, but as more of a natural law of reaping what we sow.

There exist conceptions of god that empower humans to make their own choices. Let's not collect all gods under the umbrella of the lowest common denominator type of god.

Well, I can say that as an Atheist now, I feel more free than when I was a Theist. I no longer let the fear of a judgmental God and his commandments dictate my life.

I have felt equally free as a theist and as someone who is no longer a theist.

Based on this statement, it seems that you once believed in this sort of judgmental god. It's somewhat natural that you would then think of god primarily in those terms, but that's not the only god concept out there. When I was a theist, the god I believed in was only loving and wise.

So for me, I'm neutral towards gods in general. Some of them seem downright awful while others are pretty good. I don't particularly see most of them as giving meaning, though, but some give comfort, excitement, mystery, greater things, and so forth.

-Lyn

 

[Cypress]

Freedom is being self-determined. Not determined by someone else or an external agent.

Than strictly speaking everyone is a slave, as everyone's self-determination is limited first by himself and secondly by his surroundings.

Theists are obliged to follow all the hundreds of laws put forth by holy scripture or face an eternity in Hell. If they sincerely believe in divine reward and punishment, then they will let holy commandment and laws dictate their life.

Perhaps when you follow Judaism/Christianity/Islam.
It is different with the Dharmic religions.

The Abrahamic God rewards those who fear him:

"But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall." - Malachi 4:2

I reject this concept of good too.
For me god is female, Mahadevi, mother of the world.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't really like anti-theism. Atheism doesn't really bother me, since we all have our own minds. But anti-anything sounds a bit... prejudiced. It almost seems as though one is saying "I don't believe in God, so no one else should believe in God, either." Sounds arrogant to me. (Don't be offended, I feel the same way about theists who do the same thing.)
I accept there are atheists, since there is no physical proof of God and some people just can't believe in something they can't see, hear, touch, etc.