Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1 A question for Atheists 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    This may seem an odd question
    But are there any religions that you feel you could follow not as a religion based on the question of God, but as a philosophy. For example, a non-Theistic Christian--In the sense that one would appreciate Christ's philosophy, but not in a theological sense or believing in the God mentioned in the Bible; Likewise, for another example, Buddhism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Super Moderator BadCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In your dreams
    Posts
    15,647
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    This may seem an odd question
    But are there any religions that you feel you could follow not as a religion based on the question of God, but as a philosophy. For example, a non-Theistic Christian--In the sense that one would appreciate Christ's philosophy, but not in a theological sense or believing in the God mentioned in the Bible; Likewise, for another example, Buddhism.
    I don't have a problem with the philosophies of most religions (Islam excluded). But I'm not much of a follower of anything, so...no.

    rm -rf obama*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,189
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    This may seem an odd question
    But are there any religions that you feel you could follow not as a religion based on the question of God, but as a philosophy. For example, a non-Theistic Christian--In the sense that one would appreciate Christ's philosophy, but not in a theological sense or believing in the God mentioned in the Bible; Likewise, for another example, Buddhism.
    Watts classified Buddhism as psychotherapy. Most Caucasian Buddhists appear to think of it as something between a philosophy and a metaphor for understanding metaphysics. Joseph Campbell long ago outlined the successor to traditional Christianity as the philosophical Christian, or one for whom Christianity is a metaphor for understanding. Confusing the question of course, are the hybrids of Buddhism which graft Hindu or other deities, elevated persons or ancestors, or which reason that there must be physically functional levels of consciousness above where we are now but below Oneness/Nothingness.

    Campbell was insistent that the listener understand what a metaphor truly is, because like many words it is commonly misused. A metaphor takes the place of the item in question, it stands in. A simile is an abstract term, a metaphor is a physical term.

    So the modern Christian isn't sitting there verbally translating as the mass takes place; his brain is taking in the mythology and digesting it as philosophy. More mechanical is the process by which the mind separates the organic morality, or universal philosophy, from the folk lore or prejudices of the time. So if the Bible is being misogynistic or racist, the brain doesn't translate that, it pushes it off to the side. Some people would call that denial, but in Campbell's analysis, it's evolution.
    Last edited by Novaheart; 01-16-2011 at 12:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,189
    PS- I love most of the trappings of classical Christianity, it's the fundies and preachy ones who ruin it for the rest of us. The music, the art, the ceremony, the candles, incense, imagery, and ritual is faboo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    PS- I love most of the trappings of classical Christianity, it's the fundies and preachy ones who ruin it for the rest of us. The music, the art, the ceremony, the candles, incense, imagery, and ritual is faboo.

    I think if religion ever dies, it'll be the fundies who killed it.
    Not that fundies are bad people--But you get the really visible ones like Jerry Falwell and the like who could turn away reasonable person away from the religion they espouse.
    The ultra fundies give a bad name to religion. And I'm not just talking about Christian fundamentalists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Taoism and/or Buddhism are probably the most popular for atheists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Taoism and/or Buddhism are probably the most popular for atheists.
    Taoism and Buddhism are religions...you can't believe in them and be an atheist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Toronto - Canada
    Posts
    370
    An atheist denies the existance of god. Nearly all religions have a god. The belief of many people is that you are good if you believe in the Christian God, and bad if you believe in the Muslim Allah. Odd but factual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    Taoism and Buddhism are religions...you can't believe in them and be an atheist
    There is no Personal God or Intelligent supreme being in either of them.


    the focus of these religions tends to be how one relates to themselves and with reality, not with worshiping a transcendental Person.

    idk about all the specific definitions of religion or God, but I'm pretty sure you can be Buddhist or Taoist while being an atheist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Toronto - Canada
    Posts
    370
    I thought Buddhists prayed to a fat old Chinese statue. Doesn't that statue represent their god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •