I've argued in the past that Buddhism is a great religion for atheists because it does not hold superstitious beliefs and functions as a very procedural, exploratory, even scientific path towards understanding self and becoming a better human being.

Unfortunately, even many atheists who do grasp how complimentary or even beneficial Buddhism would be to the atheist path of rational morality--rather than suffer childish apoplectic fits over the idea of atheism being compatible with a so-called "religion"--get it wrong and think that parts and bits of Buddhism and superstition must be discarded in order to "purify" it for their worldview.

Which is nonsense. Such claims only reveal that the person making them has completely failed to grasp the foundation of Buddhism itself and fallen back on reactionary perceptual programming counter to an actual Buddhist perception and acceptance of the world as it is.

Not in the idea of those superstitions being true, but of their truth or falsehood either not mattering to the practice of Buddhism or as serving some other function than what the Western atheist understands such things to function "for" in their particular understanding of religion, its pieces, their functions and use.

Earlier, I found a great article that points this out simply and also explains it simply, though perhaps not fully (which is rather zen of it, anyways). Because, you see, Einstein has the right of it:

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

-- Albert Einstein, 1945

It is that last part that most interests me, for it is that part which most of the atheists I know forget, or know and yet gloss over ("Sure it has problems, but..."), believing or seeing no alternative to deification of the intellect.

The mind is but a radio telescope designed to examine the stars turned to examine itself, using tools designed to study distant stellar phenomena to study its own mysterious design, interpreting it the only way it can, in terms of radio waves and stellar values, missing and misunderstanding much.

When you know this, you respect and see the mind and its output for its limits as much as its range.

Went to the the dentist today, still trying to fix all the holes in my teeth. Yay for getting older? Filled two cavities, got home, and my jaws started to feel like someone had pounded nails into them, then the left side of my face swelled up like a balloon. I couldn't sleep and was in a good deal of pain. So instead of having supper, I slept for nine or ten hours.

It still aches and it is still swollen.

I had that odd vampire dream again, where the vampires kill our prized and loved race/show horse, then come for our family because they noticed ME poking around. They're too fast to stop, or hit, or shoot, or protect yourself from. There's just no defeating them. I know the last time I had this dream, something interceded on our behalf and saved us, but the dream ended before we got that far this time and I can't remember what.

I'm actually wondering now if I have actually had that dream before? I was sure I had immediately afterward, and now not so much so.

I had a second dream that I did not recall until just now when I walked into the bathroom and looked at the seat cushion I'd been trying to dry (I have no clue how that triggered this memory): someone withdrew more-than-half the funds out of my savings account, and would have gotten all of them, except my bank's suspicious activity monitor kicked in and prevented any more withdrawals, transfers, etc. So I was freaking out trying to figure out who had hacked my bank account.

Interestingly, I've noted many of my dreams take place in the same set-piece areas, even if the dreams are wholly different. This dream took place, at least in part, in the scary representative basement of my parent's house as it was when I was growing up, in the south section.

In my next dream, I was working a table at a childrens' carnival fund-raiser being held inside a school. Some lady dropped off a bag of treats and we noticed a bomb at the bottom of the bag. So I saved a school full of children from a terrorist bomb by getting everyone out and making sure everyone was out later, including snotty, sneering, cynical, stupid teenagers hanging out at the school's arcade. And then making sure none of the buses dropped any more kids off at the school.

Also, this was amusing: What Would Jesus NOT Do? and the Religion 101: Final Exam. Much of which is sadly true, and my father threw a fit when I asked him questions about some of these sorts of things when I was a kid because they didn't make sense to me.

So glad my gods aren't omnipotent or omniscient and don't have silly problem issues like this.

There's a wonderful interview with Chris Hedges on Salon.com, whose last book American Fascists critiqued U.S. Christian fundamentalism, and whose new book covers the New Atheism:

In May of 2007 I went to L.A. to debate Sam Harris, and then two days later I went to San Francisco to debate Christopher Hitchens. Up until that point, I hadn't paid much attention to the work of the New Atheists. After reading what they had written and walking away from these debates, I was appalled at how what they had done for the secular left was to embrace the same kind of bigotry and chauvinism and intolerance that marks the radical Christian right. I found that in many ways they were little more than secular fundamentalists. [Ed: emphasis mine]

I also found the following point something I wish more atheists would really sit down at work out for themselves, thoughtfully, rationally, and without actual bias (as opposed to "without believing they are biased" -- believing one is not biased blinds one to actual bias; it is better to believe one is biased, and approach the issue as-if, even if one isn't):

I certainly understand that there is nothing intrinsically moral about being a believer or a nonbeliever, that many people of great moral probity and courage define themselves outside of religious structures, do not engage in religious ritual or use religious language, in the same way that many people who advocate intolerance, bigotry and even violence cloak themselves in the garb of religion and oftentimes have prominent positions within religious institutions. Unlike the religious fundamentalists or the New Atheists, I'm not willing to draw these kind of clean, institutional lines. [Ed: emphasis mine]

For atheists, maybe that's best flipped around to read: "...many outside of religious structures, who do not engage in religious ritual or use religious language, advocate intolerance, bigotry and even violence, in the same way that many people of great moral probity and courage define themselves in the garb of religion and oftentimes have prominent positions within religious institutions..."

I flipped that because, even though I recognize Hedges' statement provides a necessary perceptual wake-up important to the view of the general public, for many atheists the statement is the way they see it already, but worse in that they believe atheists=heroes and theists=villains, while the opposite proves for them vastly harder to envision. The point, ultimately though, is about the drawing of those "clean, institutional lines": groupism, tribalism. Both sides engage in it from opposite sides, and neither side is correct.

Finally, I especially like the answer to the second-to-last question in the article, because Hedges' answer strikes true something I am constantly pushing when I write about behavior, and thought, and logic. It is one of those foundational truths about human nature that I hope can let us get past our own instinctual natures once we become aware of it, and the one thing, if nothing else, that I hope everyone who does bother to read what I write walks away with.

But I'll leave you to read it yourselves.

I've recently discovered that Humanists have developed their own seasonal winter holiday celebration--HumanLight--so they don't have to celebrate any religious festival or winter festival linked to past religious festivals. Cool by me.

The stated reason for this festival, the reason for celebrating and the life-ethics encouraged by the season, the creed as it were, is as follows: "HumanLight presents an alternative reason to celebrate...a future in which all people can identify with one another, care for each other, behave with the highest moral standards, and work together toward a happy, just and peaceful world."

That's awesome; I'm totally on board with all that because it's good, wise, progressive stuff. But (and there had to be a 'but', right?)...well, they're Humanists. And Humanists tend to be rather exactly like theists in that they are often wholly at odds with their own better natures, saying one thing while completely not realizing they are behaving in just the opposite way.

You'll realize this when you read on through the HumanLight material, where you find expressed (perhaps less bluntly than usual) typically scornful Humanist attitudes towards theists (which you'd swear is equivalent to "lepers") lurking around the whole thing. For example: "HumanLight is an avenue through which we can wish others well during this season without denying, ignoring, or confusing our identities as Humanists...Humanists celebrating the event run the risk of being confused with and categorized alongside of god-worshipping [sic] people."

All of which ends up, unfortunately, being the same sort of ridiculous tribalism and willful blindness as found in statements like, "I'm not racist and I don't mind black folk, they're people, too...but I wouldn't let one marry my daughter!"

In this case, "We're great people, we love and respect everyone! Even you brainless dipshits with your irrational supernatural nonsense! Let's be friends!" Because, seriously, "Oh, dear Lord! We're not one of THOSE people! The very thought!"

So much for a future in which all people can identify with and care for one another on that basis...

As with religions that spout the same happy holidays creed of mutual brotherhood complete with overtones of superiority and "first among equals" ideation, I suggest a future of mutual respect and identification starts with not dismissing and denigrating the beliefs of others because you and yours are sooooo superior.

Sadly for those dedicated to creeds, I've found mutual respect requires some identity confusion.