My Sweet Lord: An Atheist Meditation on the God that is Love

[rug]

February 5, 2014
By James Ford

“Unpack karma and you get cause and effect. Unpack cause and effect, and you get affinity. Unpack affinity and you get the tendency to coalesce. Unpack the tendency to coalesce and you get intimacy. Unpack, intimacy and you will find that you contain all beings. Unpack containment and there is the Goddess of Mercy herself.” - Robert Aitken, Encouraging Words: Zen Buddhist Teaching for Western Students

In my youth I prayed to know God. I prayed with complete earnestness, with the fullness perhaps only a youth can muster with a deal. Show me your face and after that you can kill me.

Meant it.

And I was met with silence.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/monkeymind/2014/02/my-sweet-lord-an-atheist-meditation-on-the-god-that-is-love.html

[MattBaggins]

1. Biggest bunch of nonsensical gobbilty gook

that's a special level of word salad right there.

[rug]

2. You haven't been in GD lately.

[longship]

3. Yes, indeed. We in the Religion Group are mostly reasonable.

Maybe that's why I like perusing Religion group posts.

Rug, My question is... How do you find so many posts guaranteed to piss off atheists?

Actually, I love these. They show what people actually think about non-believers. They are really believers after all. (When you unpack it all, after all.)

[rug]

4. We are nothing if not erudite, tempered and affable.

I find these topics interesting. An unexamined opinion is neither worth having nor opposing.

Besides, I miss George.

[mr blur]

8. You don't "piss off atheists" - you merely embarrass yourselves even more.

But we're certainly struck by how fascinated you in this echo chamber are by the idea that there is no god. Keep going, you might learn something about yourselves.

[cbayer]

9. Er, longship is not only an atheist, but a pretty forceful voice.

You might want to know who you are talking to before you go on the attack.

[rug]

10. Lol, I think he meant it for me. How embarassing.

[cbayer]

12. I'm not so sure.

He has a rather itchy trigger finger.

[IrishAyes]

37. If the weather here disagrees with you, I don't see any locks on the door.

See? Rug really IS the affable one. Me, I'm a little more of a shin kicker, to my everlasting shame or credit - depends on how you look at it.

Personally I wish I could tell Mr. Ford that perhaps the silence he got meant that God wasn't ready to kill him - not yet, anyway!

[mr blur]

59. No, unfortunately the locks are all in your minds. Oh, and congratulations,

on becoming head of rug's fan club. I'm sure there was a lot of competition. He's very popular here - all echo chambers need a cheer leader so that everyone else can keep quiet and just chime in now and then to bolster his ego. I'm sure you'll work out fine.

[rug]

60. Tsk, tsk. And I was about to give you a heart.

[cbayer]

61. I suspect, based on her other posts, that this member is fully capable

of thinking for themselves and says what she thinks because she thinks it, not to bolster anyone's egos.

Glad to have her here and hope she figures out rather quickly how to make this an enjoyable group.

I'm sure she will work out just fine, too.

[Goblinmonger]

13. OK, I'm confused; can you help me out?

My first reaction was to be pissed about this post, but I'm going to understand it is likely my misunderstanding given that this doesn't mesh with what I would normally expect to see from you.

Are you saying, in your last line, that YOU agree that non-believers are actually believers after all or are you saying that that is an old chesnut that a lot of people pull out and it is something that would rightfully frustrate non-believers? I'm hoping it's the latter, but it really kind of reads like the former.

[longship]

14. No, I am saying that it is a common narrative by some believers.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my previous post.

And actually I don't get very pissed at what others say or write about atheism. I will sometimes respond to them, however, and will defend my lack of belief when it's challenged or misunderstood.

[Goblinmonger]

15. I think there was some confusion about your post.

I fully realize we have different styles/approaches and it seemed inconsistent with what I've heard from you before.

Have a great day.

[Fumesucker]

5. How do you unpack unpack?

[IrishAyes]

46. I admire your talent to ask unanswerable questions. Truth to tell, I envy it.

[IrishAyes]

42. Too confusing for you, was it now?

[Brettongarcia]

6. Rug's lifetime error: failing to see Atheist Anger is resolved by SECULAR, not religious, liberalism

Why is Rug constantly confronted by anger from atheists, even when he is asking for simple sociability? For atheists, religion is the problem, not the answer. Even Patheos' call, from a finally very liberal religiosity, for "Love," therefore does not dissolve their anger; it just makes it worse.

If we want atheists to be more social, integrated, civil? Atheists of course would be more responsive to rational/secular arguments for sociability; not religious ones.

Rug should use those arguments, not religious ones. And there are many. From secular Ethics: Secular Socialism, Secular Humanism, the rational theories of Democracy and social cooperation, social coherence; etc..

[cbayer]

7. Atheist anger?

While there are some angry atheists, just as there are some angry religionists, there is no atheist anger. And while there are some asocial, unintegrated and uncivil atheists, there are theists who hold the same cards. Some in those groups will respond to non-religious arguments, others will not.

Religion is a problem for anti-theists, not atheists. Atheists simply hold no belief in a god.

As to placating the anti-theists, why bother? Would you placate anti-atheists?

[rug]

11. Brettongarcia's current incarnation error: conflating personality with ideas.

Being no psychologist, I wouldn't even attempt to explain the odd, perseverating reactions from some in here, other than noting it has very little to do with atheism. Perhaps its simple discomfort at certainty questioned,

[Brettongarcia]

16. Does Rug's '60's, leftish/liberal Christianity or religiosity, still work? For Atheists?

It is probably at least presumptuous and insensitive - even a deliberate provocation - for a liberal Christian to propose, as a solution to all our conflicts, the idea that atheists should break down, and sing George Harrison's “My Sweet Lord.”

In fact, this is one of the major problems with Liberal Christianity; it imagines that if it just throws enough of its maternalistic “love” at everyone, everyone will break down, hold hands, and sing Cumm By Uhhh together. To be sure, Rug's excerpt is pretty good, even somewhat conciliatory, from a liberal Christian point of view; the author does more or less call himself an “atheist”; and he offers a pretty good intellectual assessment of five or six religions; looking for some kind of social coherence commonality in them. Still?

This post, like many from Rug, will seem to many, to be intended to provoke atheists. Though many atheists are relatively indifferent to religion; and simply don't think about it, or let it get to them, on the other hand, other atheists are angry after many centuries of persecution by religionists. For atheists, even the allegedly kindest liberal “love” Christianity, will be rejected; since beneath all that “love” after all, there has all too often been patronization, colonization, secret ethnic cleansing, and crippling magical thinking. And even deliberate provocation.

For these and other reasons, the New Atheism is really in no mood to make any concessions whatsoever, to traditional, or even liberal Christianity. Any allegedly conciliatory suggestion that we all hold hands – atheists included – to sing even as vaguely religious a song as “My Sweet Lord,” does not work.

[cbayer]

17. Actually your generalizations are once again wrong.

And I don't think you speak for New Atheism. You may reflect the feelings of a sub-group, but certainly not for all.

There are a growing number of organizations that fall under the "interfaith" category and include both religious and non-religious organizations.

And, IMHO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with holding hands and singing songs of peace and community. It doesn't have to be "My Sweet Lord", but liberal/progressive believers and non-believers have a lot more in common than they do differences.

Wanting to make this a war is counter-productive to the causes that democrats share and support.

Atheists have been persecuted by believers. Christians by Muslims. Muslims by other Muslims. And on and on. Why continue to peruse that path when there is an opportunity to work together with other groups?

[Brettongarcia]

19. I am not totally opposed to liberal religionists. But are their old arguments still effective?

Especially are they effective with the new, adamant atheists? Many of whom constantly constant object on DU, in fact, to attempts to bring in ANY traditional religious sentiment.

Any attempt by liberal religionists to dialogue with the New Atheism, should be cognizant of just HOW opposed many (not all) are to ANY religious reference. And how seriously they are offended by religious references, rather than attracted.

If we are to look for common ground? I suggest say, Reason. The rational elements of say Secular Humanism; Socialism; theories of social coherence.

[cbayer]

22. Not totally opposed? Well, that's peachy, because assuming you are a

liberal/progressive democrat, they are on the same side as you.

What are the old arguments that you think may be ineffective?

When you refer to the "new, adamant atheists", I'm not sure who you are describing? If you are referring to people who wish for religion to be eliminated (e.g. wear t-shirts that say "Religion - together we can find a cure" or describe themselves as anti-theist), exactly what approach do you think would be effective?

Reason to me would be to build coalitions for common causes and be tolerant/understanding of the right of others to believe or not. That's what this country was founded on and attempts by anyone, believer or not, to impinge on the rights of others is counter-productive.

[IrishAyes]

44. You make more sense than I sometimes manage to do.

[IrishAyes]

33. "Wanting to make this a war is counter-productive to the causes that democrats share and support."

Absolutely. Methinks the gentleman protesteth too much.

I for one pride myself on being one of Rug's most ardent listeners.

When it comes to my own beliefs, I've progressed/regressed to the happy realization that my God doesn't really need me to defend her at all. My job is to be happy and love people to the greatest extent possible, miniscule though it may be at times. Well, alright; most of the time when it comes to conservatives. But that's my problem and not God's fault in the least. When we pray and think we get no answer, we simply need to clean out our ears.

I've known many an atheist with a better developed soul than my own, and I find it especially touching when a person can strive for goodness in a more altruistic way than what's even possible when you believe you WILL be rewarded, one way or another, sooner or later. I honor and respect all healthy and non-destructive expressions of religion whether it's my own or not. It would be a great honor to sit at the feet of the Dali Lama and learn from him, for instance. I really, really like him.

Neither do I worry about the state of the eternal soul of an atheist, since I'm sure God loves that person just as much as me. Every bit. While it is of necessity a rather abbreviated explanation, I've always enjoyed David Letterman's take on the subject, which I've heard numerous times over the years. Goes something like this: "Stop worrying! God loves you. He IS love and therefore can't do anything else. There's nothing you can do to stop God from loving you. So don't worry about it!"

I figure that between Pope Francis, the Dali Lama, and Letterman, we're pretty well set.

[cbayer]

51. I tend to think that most people who are confident

in their beliefs tend to be like you, and I share your admiration for both believers and non-believers that simply live as good people.

Great post. I really appreciate your response.

[IrishAyes]

52. You're very kind.

[rug]

18. What on earth is "'60's, leftish/liberal Christianity"?

Did that decade treat you poorly?

[Brettongarcia]

20. The video you post is classic 60's: Band Aid or whoever, singing a Beatles song by George Harrison

George Harrison - and many other of his generation - expanded past traditional Christianity. To try to take in Indian gurus and so forth. While looking precisely at the kind of interfaith, multi-faith outline that your own post presents. My sweet "Lord" is nondenominational/ecumenist.

So whether you know it or not, the Discus post you present here, is classic Beatles-era ecumenism; probably from someone of a certain age to remember that stuff.

The 60's by the way, are conventionally taken to include at least the 70's, to about 1980. It's the high point of hippie liberalism. And the home of lots of liberal Christian/religionist ideas.

But that era is vulnerable to lots of criticisms, after all. All liberalism in fact, was already under severe criticism by the Marxist left; as having co-opted too many outdated forms of exploitation and say, privilege.

While today? A certain criticism of Liberalism continues.

[rug]

21. The video is in the article from the Atheist Channel at Patheos.

It was shot in 2002.

While I listen to your revealing critique of liberalism, let's listen to something that may be more to your liking.

[Brettongarcia]

23. Your first is VERY retro. You can see the same thing in 1976. The song is Beatles; 1969-70.

I'm not really a great fan of Toby Keith; patriotic enough I guess though.

Thought anyone with Karl Marx as his avatar would understand a critique of liberalism ... from the Left; not the Right.

[cbayer]

24. If I might - why do you sport that particular avatar?

[Brettongarcia]

25. Kennedy was the archetypal Liberal; but liberalism was revolutionary in his own era.

Kennedy was one of the youngest presidents ever, and most modern; he seemed to authorize the "youth culture" of 60's liberalism. Which in its own time again, was revolutionary. To this day, the Boston/Harvard congressional districts are the most liberal; even to the point again of leftism.

Most people feel that Civil Rights came out of Kennedy; Johnson said that he was just following through with Kennedy's programs.

Plus we had mutual family friends. And I worked for his wife for a while.

[cbayer]

26. So, you support the archetype that prompted the liberal movement of the 60's an 70's,

but reject what he precipitated as "retro" and irrelevant?

That makes little sense to me, but your agenda and driving force remain somewhat vague.

[Brettongarcia]

28. My point is that classic 60's persons, liberals, think of themselves as timelessly advanced; but ...

Liberalism has moved on in the last 50 years. From a mild liberalism/cynicism regarding too strict religion. To an increasingly adamant critique of all of it.


Same movement as the 60's, Liberalism. Just 50 years of continued advancements after it.

[cbayer]

29. I disagree.

I think the neo-cons co-opted the momentum of religiously driven liberalism. The critique is of the grossly conservative turn of religion, not of progressive/liberal religion.

Liberalism really hasn't moved on. The specific issues have changed but the over-riding concepts of social justice, civil rights, economic equality and peace have remained the same.

And, thankfully, progressive religious people and groups and taking it back and becoming more actively involved and having more impact.

This country is moving back towards the left after a huge lunge to the right, but it's not going to get that much more liberal than it was in the 60's and 70's.

[Brettongarcia]

30. What you say seems about right. Except I see modern Atheists as the true extension of that

They see all religion as essentially exploiting workers, poor people; so it's all a continuation of civil rights.

The general theory might be that ALL religion, even liberalism, teaches us to be too satisfied with the status quo. TO "love" things as they are; while not moving ahead to correct problems.

But? Lefist and Liberals ARE on the same side, more or less.

So? How about a little more liberal tolerance of atheists?

[cbayer]

32. I don't think the problem with intolerance of atheists come from the religious left.

So you might have to take that up with the religious right.

You have again made some very broad statements about what atheists "see" or believe, and I think you are really off the mark. While some may see all religion as doing what you say, many don't see it that way at all.

They just don't believe in a a god or gods - nothing more, nothing less.

Are you not aware of how the religious left has led and participated in movements addressing the rights of workers and poor people?

[IrishAyes]

39. Doesn't look to me, a latecomer to this thread, that liberals started the bickering.

Friendly tip: clean up your own act before attacking us. We'd listen a lot better then.

It sort of defeats the purpose when you get testy with others for supposedly not treating you with kid gloves. See the disconnect?

[Goblinmonger]

47. Clarification question

When you say "clean up your own act" are you referring to conservatives or atheists?

If it's the former, that's cool. If it's the latter, I have a few thoughts for you to consider.

[IrishAyes]

48. I simply meant that self defeating behavior benefits no one. I should know,

having far too much practice with the dark art myself. I mean, we can't march up to someone and demand that they act better than we might be acting at the time. Just*doesn't*work*for*anyone.

Not even me.

Or Brettongarcia. Or....

[Goblinmonger]

49. On face value that is an interesting thought

but you did include this line:

clean up your own act before attacking us

Which seems kind of attacky. Yeah, you put "friendly note" before it, but that just makes it kind of passive-aggressive.

And this

we can't march up to someone and demand that they act better than we might be acting at the time

makes it sound like all theists are out there just minding their own business and the shitty, mean, old atheist comes up and starts some shit. Do you not think that perhaps it is not the atheists that are acting poorly but the theists and the atheists are just reacting? Could that not be a possibility? I think I get the clear vibe from most all atheists in here that if theists would just keep their belief to themselves and not try to change law based on their religious beliefs or try to limit my rights based on my unbelief, we would not give two shits about what anyone believed.

[IrishAyes]

50. Oh noes, you're putting words in my mouth.

What part of "we" - as in all of us - did you fail to understand? Why did you take it to mean specifically atheists or anyone else who holds views different from mine? When I tried to make it clear I realize that's an evenly distributed problem? Mis-characterize (is that a real word?) it as you wish, I was only saying we all owe each other elbow room. Being so quick to describe my statements as 'attacky' does make you as an individual sound a bit twitchy, though, I'll admit.

Don't worry, we all get that way sometimes. So back to square one. Opening with a self righteous snarl is neither effective nor acceptable no matter who does it to whom. I joke about shin kicking now and then, but most of the time nothing could be further from the truth. I just enjoy inconvenient questions. FumeSucker's my superior in that department by far, and I've admitted my envy. So kindly remove your boot from my heel, if it's convenient.

[Goblinmonger]

56. I'm talking about your original post

where you said this:

Friendly tip: clean up your own act before attacking us. We'd listen a lot better then.

That's the part that I refer to as attacky. The only place you use "we" in there is to distinguish yourself from that which you are saying is bad.

And you choose to complete ignore the point I was making about what atheists are doing is a reaction. If that were the case (and I don't know your views on that because you haven't answered), then your statement of "clean up your own act before attacking us" is the saying that those that are the victim need to respect the offender before the offender will show respect which they didn't do in the first place.

I get what you are saying, but you opened with a "self righteous snarl." That is what I'm reacting to: an attitude where you snarl and (albeit in a very passive aggressive nicey sounding way) indict those that snarl.

[IrishAyes]

57. See a doctor for your paranoia. They have meds that can do wonders these days.

Been hitting the pretzels a little hard lately? Since you're determined to cherry-pick in a desperate search for traction to excuse your own glaring hypocrisy and aggression, I hereby declare this 'conversation' closed. Further wastes of my time will go unanswered. I don't owe you a single damned word of apology either.

How's that for cheeky?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Well that escalated quickly

You sure shed the "let's have a discussion and all get along" persona quickly.

Sorry I pointed out that your attitude was pretty transparent from the get go. Better luck with the next time you give that "awe shucks" attitude a shot. Hopefully those reading along remember this lesson.

[IrishAyes]

34. My dear Rug,

as that's always how I think of you;

The notorious 'they' say that if you can remember the 60's you weren't really there. I love what Dylan said when someone asked if he told the truth in his book. The answer? "As nearly as I can remember. But some places I have to let imagination fill in the gaps." Or words to that effect.

Your opponent in this thread suffers from an ego problem, I'd say. Gotta find some way to put you down or prove you wrong, no matter how hard he has to scratch to find something to hang it on.

[rug]

54. Thanks, Irish.

Kind words.

[IrishAyes]

43. Knowing we can question certainty comforts me. Perverse little snot that I am.

[IrishAyes]

38. Ummm.... 'scuse me, please? When did anyone fall under the obligation to please or placate you?

Just asking. It certainly won't be me!

[madrchsod]

27. well that is really weird...

i'm not going to spend any time trying to figure that out.

[libdem4life]

31. I think I might be an Agnostic. We don't know for sure, nor do we wish or care to know.

I'm Christian-Buddhist-Hindu and would probably love to add Islam but I don't live on the West Coast at present, so there are no Mosques available.

I don't believe or disbelieve anything. I am that I am as I am. Jesus said there was really only one Commandment...Treat/Love your neighbor as yourself. He threw in The Beatitudes to back it up. Buddha said everything is suffering...and enlightenment is the inner reality and deep acceptance of that precept. Krishna said 'It is better to live your own destiny imperfectly than to live an imitation of somebody else's life with perfection.'

I have read holy scriptures that meant little, read them again with understanding. We evolve based on our individual timeline. "We are all perfect spiritual beings having imperfect physical lives." (or something similar) Deepak Chopra.

[IrishAyes]

35. Me too; with a strong dose of animism thrown in. I used to astro-trip stone cold sober,

and it couldn't have been entirely under my own power. There has to be a universal power flowing through all creation, even inanimate objects and materials. My own personal spirit guide is Bear, btw. If it had been left up to me, I'd have chosen Horse - but it is what it is what it is. And yes, I've often been accused of being poly-theistic or even heretical. Doesn't bother me a bit. One of the greatest blessings of my life has been association with a wide variety of people, including a Native American healer who was generous enough to share a bit of knowledge with a pesky Irish-American kid.

[libdem4life]

36. I have had the privilege of sitting in the presence of a number of Masters. Living in LA/SF

gives one unique opportunities, also to sit with visiting masters.

One of the most meaningful was a sweat and a drumming circle with a female Medicine Woman and she called down the Directions relating and blessing each with it's animal representative. I don't remember which ones, but her headdress was a deer hood/antlers...it was powerful. I wish I knew which one I was.

[IrishAyes]

40. Although I have a special way with horses and feel closer communion with them than with many

humans, it was the Shaman who noticed and told me my spirit guide was actually Bear. Proof? After an extended harrowing period later in life, not even a handmade dream catcher hung over the bed helped. Then one day I happened upon a sheet set with bears all over it. First good night's sleep I had in months, when before I was afraid of losing my mind. Yes, of course auto-suggestion played a role, but then how do we arrive at a place where we can benefit from that?
................................................

PS: I think what scares some people is the necessity of completely letting go of oneself enough to trust the Universe. But when we can, it's quite a ride.

[libdem4life]

45. That's a great story. Zen was my way of learning to let go. Rather bleak, I must admit, but

really stripped it down to the basics.

I'm going to watch for clues now. I know that the years I spent on the farm from ages 9-16...were the best years of my life. I had a collie dog, a Shetland pony, a barn with chickens, ducks, guineas, pigs and cows so I'd have a hard time picking out my favorite...I loved them all and it's still in my heart to live on a farm. That I've had to let go of for now, but who knows, I know I am where I am. Ram Dass "Be Here Now".

[cbayer]

53. I love this post.

I too have taken various things from various faiths and held on to some of them tightly, while letting others go. Various ones have helped me at various points.

I think we may be more the norm than the outliers.

[libdem4life]

55. Seems we are made up of some pretty complex materials which doesn't always fit into a neat

package. To me, that's the difference between religion (written down, translations, exposition, rules, culture, punishments, etc.) and spirituality which is, by it's very nature, an inside endeavor. I think Jesus summed it up..."By their works ye shall know them". It's those every day things, how we live our lives. Being in the presence of anyone who is farther down the road, in person or in spirit, blesses us with more energetic goodness.

[IrishAyes]

41. BTW, dear rug, many thanks for a stimulating thread.