They may be "atheolatrial", so to speak, but the existence of deities is not explicitly denied beyond the sense that the permanence and independent reality of anything within samsara is refuted. The "ultimate reality" may be impersonal, but that, if anything, fits with the concept of the divine that many in the present day have when they say the word "God". Few, if any, people these days picture God as a hoary, bearded old man sitting on a cloud and frowning (or smiling, take your pick) down at Creation.
The figure of Christ is actually strikingly similar to the figure of the Buddha. Both offer a way to salvation/enlightenment that involves a renunciation of material attachments, just acts and behavior and a reinterpretation of spiritual reality that makes the old temple cults obsolete and worthless. Both are universalist creeds that grew out of narrow ethno-religious traditions, and both influenced those narrow traditions and forced them to evolve to remain marginally relevant in modern society (though both are essentially relics of a bygone era).
I think that any reading you do on Akhenaten will disappoint you. His "monotheism" was really closer to the "national deity" concept that was present in the Near East in the Iron Age, where a polytheistic world was assumed but one god assumed primacy and was worshipped almost exclusively. The concept is similar to, but not exactly, henotheism. The development was what we would today call "political", though obviously in ancient Egypt the ideas of separate "religious" and "political" spheres would be an alien concept. The temples had grown powerful, and Akhenaten sought to wreck their power and consolidate the state cult around himself as the living expression of his prime deity, the Aten (probably actually a-t:'n based on Amarna transcriptions in Akkadian, the whole name almost certainly pronounced i:x-na-a-ti:'n, though in correspondence he is referred to by his Horus name, spelled "mery-aten" but in Amarna letters mai-ati:'n). It was sort of like the destruction of the monasteries in Reformation England combined with the Stalinist cult of personality, and very, very light on the philosophy from the extant records.
The figure of Christ is actually strikingly similar to the figure of the Buddha. Both offer a way to salvation/enlightenment that involves a renunciation of material attachments, just acts and behavior and a reinterpretation of spiritual reality that makes the old temple cults obsolete and worthless. Both are universalist creeds that grew out of narrow ethno-religious traditions, and both influenced those narrow traditions and forced them to evolve to remain marginally relevant in modern society (though both are essentially relics of a bygone era).
I think that any reading you do on Akhenaten will disappoint you. His "monotheism" was really closer to the "national deity" concept that was present in the Near East in the Iron Age, where a polytheistic world was assumed but one god assumed primacy and was worshipped almost exclusively. The concept is similar to, but not exactly, henotheism. The development was what we would today call "political", though obviously in ancient Egypt the ideas of separate "religious" and "political" spheres would be an alien concept. The temples had grown powerful, and Akhenaten sought to wreck their power and consolidate the state cult around himself as the living expression of his prime deity, the Aten (probably actually a-t:'n based on Amarna transcriptions in Akkadian, the whole name almost certainly pronounced i:x-na-a-ti:'n, though in correspondence he is referred to by his Horus name, spelled "mery-aten" but in Amarna letters mai-ati:'n). It was sort of like the destruction of the monasteries in Reformation England combined with the Stalinist cult of personality, and very, very light on the philosophy from the extant records.
This message last edited by Dan on 11/03/2012 at 03:31:51 PM
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West?
10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM
- 1291 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM*
10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM
- 355 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not?
10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM
- 521 Views
If the divine made men...
10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM
- 516 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine.
10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM
- 531 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed.
10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM
- 550 Views
But you do comparable things all the time!
10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM
- 744 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable
10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM
- 629 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have.
11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM
- 597 Views
You're right and wrong.
10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM
- 941 Views
Re: You're right and wrong.
11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM
- 848 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged
11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM
- 849 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world.
11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM
- 648 Views
Duplicate post *NM*
11/03/2012 03:28:58 PM
- 374 Views
I guess it is that old impersonalism that seems the great disappointment in most Eastern religions.
11/03/2012 04:48:54 AM
- 750 Views
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? *NM*
10/03/2012 06:29:35 PM
- 279 Views
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible.
10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM
- 638 Views
Basically what Dan said; atheism as iconoclasm sans icons (unless we count religion as symbolism.)
11/03/2012 12:46:52 AM
- 652 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"?
10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM
- 721 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism.
11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM
- 642 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM
- 712 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship.
11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM
- 730 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM
- 593 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did.
11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM
- 671 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM
- 746 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal.
11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM
- 816 Views
Mierda.del.Toro
11/03/2012 12:36:59 PM
- 697 Views
1969 may be "sometime back" in Roman Catholic history,but is ~a millenium after the time in question
12/03/2012 05:47:11 PM
- 948 Views
You really must get steamed by anyone calling you out on your hyberbolic comments
12/03/2012 06:55:06 PM
- 808 Views
On the contrary, I am not the one screaming "bullshit" in as many languages as possible.
13/03/2012 12:07:54 AM
- 850 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου.
11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM
- 777 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next?
12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM
- 683 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp.
12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM
- 592 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself.
13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM
- 726 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong.
12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM
- 896 Views
I will do the former at least; pretty sure this "discussion" has reached rock bottom.
13/03/2012 12:12:46 AM
- 539 Views
More or less your last line
11/03/2012 01:37:42 AM
- 615 Views
That is a broader argument, but more consistent with iconoclasms established meaning.
11/03/2012 05:12:12 AM
- 728 Views
Would you include the iconoclasm that Joel cites in the canonical Judeo-Christian tradition as well?
11/03/2012 12:44:49 PM
- 595 Views