Well, most of what I would personally call "bhuddist talk", quoted either by you or Sam Harris are impossibly abstract for me. I don't see it as any failure on my part. I just don't feel this way, I just can't get it, so I simply can't refer to it. You may say my mind is not awakened
(whatever that means
)
I considered once being a nonbeliever becoming a protestant because I thought they were true believers in God, they strongly empasized importance of subjective interpretation of the Bible, they really knew it, unlike catholics for whom what the pope(/the priests) says is good enough.
What "atehist musketeers" (S. Harris/R. Dawkins/C. Hitchens/D. Dannet) did for me is to drag me away from the idea that believing in God will have a beneficial effect on me. I realized that it's only psychological propensity to unlink from reality, to give in to false comfort of delusion. (It was in fact Sam Harris who really broke through psychological barrier in my brain.
)
I mean one doesn't have to conceive Bhuddism to arrive at certain conclusions.