The label atheist is problematic due to the straw definitions believers put up against it that muddy the waters and poison the well.

It's pretty well established on RfM that the definition of atheism is the default position on the assertion that a god exists.

"I don't believe in a god" does not equal "I believe no god exists."

Under this definition of lack of belief, I consider myself to be an atheist. At least, I consider myself to be an atheist consciously.

The problem I'm becoming aware of is that I'm not sure if unconsciously I still believe in a god.

For example, when I think of death I'm immediately confronted with thoughts of afterlife and judgment. There are no emotions associated with those thoughts. I'm not scared or anything.

But if I'm honest with myself I absolutely have to admit that while I don't pretend to KNOW if there's life after death, or what that entails, my brain immediately goes to after-death review of my mortal life in the presence of some transcendent being.

Of course a flurry of other thoughts come in as well, most notably the thought "but I have no good reason to think that will actually happen."

I'm left pondering if I might actually still believe in a god unconsciously, either due to my early mormon programming, or some biological programming, or cultural programming, or because of some so-called spiritual experiences I had growing up, or for x reason.

What can I do about it? Consciously I most certainly do not believe in a god, yet I become aware of thoughts to the contrary when I think about things like death.

What's your experience?

If someone asks your religion, tell them you're working on it or it's a private matter. Then change the subject.

I think it's often rude and intrusive to ask about religion unless both parties are comfortable with the subject.

Ask dave the atheist if you are.

People who experience NDEs usually see what they expect, so I think whether you are or aren’t, you are right. As for the judgement, how can you trust anything that came out of philandering Joe’s mouth? I’d expect God to get a kick out of Atheists. They’re certainly more fun than prudes.

I'm just an "ist".....not sure what kind of "ist"....don't care.

I know of three religions that "do not believe in God"--most especially if "God" is defined as some kind of "Big Guy in the Sky":

1) Buddhism

2) Hinduism (as a significant part)

3) Judaism (as a significant part, particularly from the Middle Ages on)

Buddhism: I know very little about Buddhism (except that Buddha himself was born a Hindu--and then, as a young adult, developed the separate religion he is known for), so I am simply repeating here what is generally said about Buddhism "not believing in God."

Hinduism: Although Hinduism is popularly known as a religion which believes in "countless" gods, those "gods" (plural) are universally known (even the "animal" gods, like Hanuman, the monkey god) to be "humanized" aspects of Brahman (Brahman is "All That IS"--or, in other words, "Reality"--the actual reality beyond human comprehension...that which can never be disproven because it can never be completely comprehended by physical human brains, although significant parts of it can be comprehended by science and mathematics).

Judaism: Once a Jew enters into the realms of Jewish mysticism (where the serious thinking about "God" vis-à-vis reality/science/mathematics really begins), the concept of "Ein Sof" (the limitless, the infinite, the all-comprehensive--including all other possible, potential, universes, etc.) is, at THAT level, the Jewish concept of God.

In other words (and both Jewish and Hindu authorities agree on this): Brahman = Ein Sof. The two are identical concepts, described (in different languages), with different words/"names"...none of which involve a "Big Guy in the Sky."

That being said, most Hindus worldwide--while acknowledging that Brahman is "all" and contains "all"--do believe, in some personally meaningful way, that the individual gods/goddesses they are addressing in prayer or other worship are (simultaneously with those doing the addressing) "also" real (something roughly like: an individual person may be part of the "all" that is the total group of people (collectively) on this planet, but if that person is your spouse, or child, or parent, you recognize and relate to that person in special ways which do not apply to how you recognize "people" in the form of the entire spectrum of human beings alive at any particular moment).

In Judaism, although most Jews (both historically and now) probably have an inner "Big Guy in the Sky" private philosophy (a personal philosophy which is easily accessible to anyone, including children growing up), Jews (even unlearned ones) often intuit some kind of (at least beginner's concept) "Ein Sof" reality, even if the concept of God they address in communal or personal prayer, or in thought, is the "Big Guy in the Sky" one.

Once a Jew begins to seriously study the innards of Jewish philosophy, though, the concept of "Ein Sof" is introduced soon. (I have a Jewish Hebrew school (day school) and congregational school ("Sunday school," in Christian terms) instructional book geared to about sixth-grade academic level, and the concept of Ein Sof is introduced very early in the text, and then discussed, in its various aspects, throughout.)

The important thing to realize is that Hinduism's concept of "Brahman," and Judaism's concept of "Ein Sof," are identical to each other, and both "translate" to something which means: "Ultimate Reality [no matter what that IS, or may turn out to be]."

(It intuitively appears to me that this would be at the opposite end of the spectrum from the "Big Guy in the Sky" concept of reality, or most any concept of "God" as it is commonly understood around the planet.)

On a personal level: One of the areas I have been thinking about and researching is what OTHER "Brahman"/"Ein Sof" concepts might be "out there" in other global cultures--and I am particularly interested in tribal beliefs from peoples around the world.

Although I have not found any yet, I think it is more probable than not that they exist (at least here and there, both historically and, also, at this present time).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2018 04:14PM by Tevai.

An excellent and thoughtful post.

The more you investigate Hinduism and Buddhism, the more difficult they become to differentiate. Buddhism is a species of Hinduism, with some significant innovations, like Protestantism is a species of Christianity and Christianity is a species of Judaism.

In Buddhism in particular, but also to some extent in Hinduism, gods are reincarnated beings like humans or cockroaches. They are more advanced, but they are still imperfect entities held together by worldly illusions and passions. Ultimately they too will be liberated and find fulfillment in the extinction of the individual as it merges with the ultimate reality. So gods in Hinduism and bodhisatvas in Buddhism simultaneously represent imperfect beings and aspects of God/Brahman.

That is a simplification, of course. Some forms of Buddhism are even closer to Hinduism, and sometimes the gods can become obstacles to the individual human rather than supports. That is clear, for instance, in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which is definitely worth a read.

Another religion that is atheistic, even more atheistic, is Taoism. Taoism has a sense of nature, of natural order, but none of an afterlife or a supreme being. That is why, historically, Taoism was replaced by Buddhism when the latter entered East Asia. Put simply, people found greater comfort in a faith that posited an afterlife than one that had nothing to say about the matter.

Finally, I suspect you will find in most of the world's indigenous faiths various strains of polytheism. That is probably the natural state for humans. It was the natural state before monotheism raised its head in Zoroastrianism and the closely related Hindu/Buddhist traditions. It was also from the Zoroastrians, in the captivity, that the Jewish priestly class adopted monotheism, which obviously spread to Christianity and Islam. Polytheism tends to reassert itself even within monotheistic faiths as with Buddhism's gods and Christianity's saints.

At some level this is probably partly biological, partly genetic. Humans seem to default to belief in superior beings--and probably multiple superior beings. Channeling that into monotheistic belief may take some effort, and moving to full-on atheism may be a bit like holding one's breath: possible, certainly, but not as easy as it seems. Which brings us back to QPSQ's very interesting opening post.

Most of the Jewish people I meet through synagogue believe in the God of the bible. But after reading your take I'm curious as to how many were I to inquire.

I may do a casual survey of some acquaintances to see how they perceive God based on their religious training, and personal views.

From the rabbis who preach from the podium, as the guest speakers, there is never any question or doubt they are mostly believers.

Thank you, Lot's Wife, for remembering Taoism! :)

To my knowledge, I know no Taoists and have never known any Taoists, and although there may be a Taoist group around me "somewhere" (the Chinatown area, for example), if such does exist, I am unaware of it.

I agree with most of what you said about polytheism, but because I was raised Hindu, I've "always" known that, on a deeper level, there is overall unity. Sometimes it is hard to get out of the mental "box" I was raised in! :D

For me, the exception to the "unity behind the many" would be the Bantu (southern Africa) religions which are heavily based on caring for, and being cared for by, deceased ancestors. From what I know, there is no perceived "unity" behind the ancestors, because they exist, individually, pretty much as they did in their lives (except that they no longer have physical bodies).

Thank you for YOUR excellent and thoughtful post!! :D



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2018 06:38PM by Tevai.

I presume you know about the Hindu/Zoroastrian connection. India and Iran were invaded by the same people--kindred tribes--known as Indo-Iranians or, more broadly, Indo-Europeans. They are the ones who carried the original monotheistic idea out of the steppe. It informed Zoroastrianism in Iran, with a single God, and Brahmanism/ Hinduism/Buddhism, with a single ultimate reality, in India.

You are right that you haven't run into Taoists. Taoism was mainly an elite religion in China, where most people were animists/polytheists (again like Canaan before and around the YHWH cult). Taoism gained some currency but was displaced by Buddhism about 2,000 years ago. Thereafter Taoism (Daojia) became Taoism (Daojiao), which was really just magic--the quest for immortality, infinite libido, etc--and eventually disappeared.

There was a great historian of China and Central Asia who was working on the notion that there may have been a connection between the Indo-Europeans and Taoism when he prematurely died. The bases for his thinking were 1) the legends that Laozi came from the West of China, rendering contact with India through trade networks possible; and 2) the concept of a single reality that suffuses Taoist thought and looks a lot like the Indian conception.

There is another connection between Indo-Iranian thought and Greek philosophy, also dating back to the common heritage of the Indo-European invaders. In ancient Greece there is both a tradition of multiple gods and an undercurrent of monotheism that surfaces in the works of several of the Golden Age philosophers. Some of the commonalities were almost certainly coincidence, but the fact remains that from China to Greece a lot of the same ideas were developing at the same time: roughly 600 BCE.

I just call myself a hopeful skeptic.

But I guess I'm basically an agnostic-atheist, because it depends on how you ask me the question.

"Do you believe in God?" "No, I do not have a belief in any gods." - Atheist.

"Does God exist?" "I've no idea and neither do you. Many people believe it, but the only real truth is that we just don't know." - Agnostic.

Great story.
I don't get the burning desire to identify myself as anything, other than my name.
Believing in god or not believing in god doesnt make you any better off.
Unless you live in a very conservative community, then it can. I am not religious, but I work for very conservative Christians. I also work with atheists, Muslims, Hindus. The people who make the most are super Xtian.
I dont care about making $millions.
I just want to go to paradise.
To me that be something like what is beneath the sea in a tropical ocean, only with shade.
Im pretty sure that world exists,
Down there,
From whence we came
To where we are destined to return
Dark Energy-Dark Matter=C,
Cosmological Constant
Singularity
The Great Attractor
Dark Matter,
All together
Erupting from the
Center of everything,
Singularity and
Super Symetry
Along comes symetry smashing God particle,
Creating
E=mc^2
And
M=E/c^2
Energy slowing down to almost zero is when it begins to matter.
Dark Matter-Dark Energy =
The God Particle
The Great Attractor = Dark Matter
Dark Energy = energy moving faster than light

"Yes zi believe in 'god' if by the word 'god' you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws governing the Cosmos." Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2018 09:04PM by koriwhore.

My Theism has evolved the last 10 years since leaving the morg. It's gone like this: LDS Godhead - Christian Trinitarian Godhead - Deist - Agnostic. I presently don't know if there is a God/Higher Power or if there is an afterlife. I like the philosophy of some aspects of Buddhism. I think there maybe a spiritual component of our Universe, but I just don't know. I'm open minded enough to admit that my beliefs could still evolve, based on my material or spiritual needs.

give this a watch: http://www.atheist-experience.com/

they have a youtube channel that is chock-full of the most interesting call-ins; a few from Mormons even.

Thanks, I've been watching the atheist experience for like, 15 years.

And only until recently I would have asserted that I absolutely lack belief in a god.

But recently I've started to acknowledge that I may actually harbor an unconscious belief in god due to some very deep programming.

I know all the arguments back and forth. I've memorized them all. I can easily defeat kalam, or any of the standard arguments for the existence of god.

I've watched hitchens, and dawkins, and harris, and all the rest over and over and over.

But still, deep down in my unconscious mind, I wonder if there is belief that subtly informs my world view and my behavior.

An Atheist is someone who is free of theism.

I'm solar agnostic. I think there's a sun, but I'm not sure. Every night I can't see it, so how do I know it is still there? Even during daylight, I don't know for sure that the sun didn't explode three minutes ago, and we just don't know yet because the light hasn't reached earth yet.

My probably very obscure point is that "I do/don't know something with absolute,100% certainty" is not a good standard. We don't know anything with 100% certainty. I'm not 100% certain that I exist. I'm even less certain that you do. Still, I'm close enough to certain that I am more than willing to stipulate that we both exist.

I consider myself atheist. I'm not 100% certain there is no God or gods, but I have seen so little evidence for even the possibility, that my current belief is properly described as atheist. If I become aware of evidence that I find compelling, I'm open to changing my mind.


As for OP's closing question, why do you need to do anything about ambivalent beliefs? Nothing wrong with ambivalence.

Thanks. I mean, obviously no one knows anything with 100% certainty.

As far as ambivalent beliefs, I'm not sure they're ambivalent. My point is that I may very well behave the way I do based on an unconscious belief in judgment and afterlife.

Maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe it's an evolutionary advantage. Or maybe it is a bad thing, and it's the product of childhood programming.

I just don't see any good reason to believe in any gods, and it bothers me to think that I may still believe on an unconscious level (maybe a lot of us do) and I'd like to know if there's anything to be done about that.

If mormon programming runs so deep that I can't shake thoughts of afterlife and judgment, how can I assess my recovery from mormonism?

I think a sane person will always do a quick assessment of their unconscious actions. Why is my first instinct anger when I'm cut off. Why do I always retreat emotionally when something that I care about isn't a priority to those around me. And so forth.

My point being that if an unconscious action is something you aren't comfortable with you have the power to do something about it. It isn't just Mormon programming but all of life experiences. There is a reason some people prefer the taste of chicken over steak, and why others cannot stand an IPA but love a hefe.

I know that I cannot go through life pretending there is no Creator, when our very existence screams there is. We are products of human engineering, by someone with far more acumen than our science and text books contain.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know that I cannot go through life pretending
> there is no Creator, when our very existence
> screams there is. We are products of human
> engineering, by someone with far more acumen than
> our science and text books contain.

Yeah it's tempting but then you have the whole who created the Creator problem ... gods all the way up.

No god needed.

Nontheism makes a lot of sense but my past experience with self-proclaimed atheists is that they seem to expand the definition to the point that they basically are stuck in 19th century positivism mixed with naive utilitarianism / pragmatism.

What is a "self-proclaimed Atheist" ? Sounds like more of your insane bullshit.

Theism = belief in a god or gods.

a = prefix meaning "without"

Isn't that what I said in the original post? "Lack of belief"?

The standard joke is . . .

"I used to be an agnostic, but now I just don't know."