But here we should examine our motivation, and not regard the simple Christian soul as an enemy, or a fool, even on a subtle level. Their beliefs are valid for them and if they wish no challenge, why offer it? Arrogance is a terrible poison, inappropriate for anyone trying to help the world. It is a particular trap of logicians and, as a small ‘A’ atheist, I fall into it myself. I want to prove the preacher wrong. But why polarize the situation? It’s indecent behavior, and will change no one’s mind.
But if a person with doubts seeks reasoned argument, offer it. Good debate is powerful. When someone sincerely questions, show them your proof.
God. Is he absolute, or does he change? Is he both the jealous god of the Old Testament and the loving God of the New? That is fine, I accept a God that grows. In fact, I love the idea.
Here is the rub. God is absolute truth in the Christian view. What is absolute is beyond change. According to the Bible, this god has changed, attaining compassion at the death of his son. What does change do? It makes things different. It is a different god. Has Yahweh disappeared? Is it one god, or two? Did a new god replace the old? Or, are they the same god? But if they are the same, how could they be different? God is not two and not one, therefore not truly existent.
There are numerous such proofs, and they are easy to create. Consider: did God need to learn a lesson? Then he is fallible. Did God need to grow, to change? Then he is not eternal. Eternity is the changeless and stretches to the past as well. To be Real, a thing must be eternal. It cannot alter. The Bible itself disproves both an eternal God, and an infallible God. These may seem to be word games, but contemplate them fully; they are not. This is a means of defeating fundamental conceptual belief. But, if the argument battles the more powerful god called the self, then this defeat will be superficial. Only meditation yields that fruit.
In sum, it seems that Buddhism and Atheism share immense common ground. Atheism, in its modern manifestation, is new, and I see one tremendous obstacle, mentioned in the beginning. It is defined as disbelief in something first, thus it will perpetually suffer from a polarized view. Atheism must always battle the followers of God, a difficult position. Buddhism says that mind creates reality, so if one believes in God, to that person, God is real. There is no problem. Believe as you like, and so will I.
There is no wish to be coy, but the Buddhist philosophy probably has another advantage, the weight of history. Atheism, being new, cannot compete with so many millions who have devoted their lives to naught but truth, and taught their understanding, each master building on the cumulative masters’ insight, for twenty five centuries. It in no way diminishes the validity of the Atheist position. After all, Buddhism once was new.
It still is, in the West, where it manifests differently as it arrives, ancient, yet fresh. Historically, however, Buddhism ran against Hinduism, the prevailing religion, which believed in Atman, or the universal self. Buddha countered this by proclaiming anatman, or not-self. Buddha was an atheist, make no mistake. The arguments, both meditative and logical, overwhelm any belief in substantive existence, either God or the self. They belong in the Atheist toolbelt as much as the scientific methodology fits in the Buddhist approach. The truth is no one’s property, nor is the means to its discovery. Buddhism and Atheism share this fundamental concern: the search for truth through compassionate means. Buddhist and Atheist, one can certainly be both. I am. One could envision a new approach by combining them.
Call it buddhatheism.
