I'm an atheist but I quite like Buddism...

[tantric]

Sounds like woo. Point to a buddha so we can see how perfectly they follow this path?

It's an ideological construct. And a person who existed in the past. Do you understand non-dualism, philosophically?

Not really a demand for exclusivity in my case. But being who I am, if some person claims that a tradition grants them something that I want, and I see a more rational alternative without additional baggage and no magic, I take that instead (the baggage is usually the problem which I would like to see resolved - it grinds my gears when people "get it right" for absurdly silly reasons...a much stronger case can be made). Often enough, I just don't want what any given religion says it offers. I have what you might consider smaller aspirations. Most of the time I'm just looking for some tangible work that I can do which provides a demonstrable benefit to myself and those around me. With my hands, mind you, not my "spirit".

Buddhistically speaking, that's fine and even appropriate. We don't care at all what label you accept. The guide here is the phrase "Ahimsa paramo dharma" - if the path you follow leads you to non-violence and co-existence, it's not broken and doesn't need to be fixed.

OTOH, if you are not seeking spiritual peace and a meaningful life, why do you care about those of us who do, so long as we "Ahimsa paramo dharma"?

Some atheists may, but unless it has to do with their atheism particularly, meh. In any case -this atheist- doesn't. Now I'm not holding you, personally, accountable for everything that buddhists have ever done. That's on them. The issue is that when their buddhism is pointed to as the impetus (your example regarding killing priests, btw, terrible example of a tu qo..because it was some additional belief about the shittiness of priests, not the claimants lack of belief in god which spurred the comment), and I can get whatever you think buddhism gives without that shitty thing, again, I bench buddhism. Like I said, I'm a humanist. I don't think that either atheism or theism (or deism) would continue to have any meaning to me if I were presented with a god. If you're asking me whether, for example..if I met the christian god (or any other) I would become a christian (or any other), or not- the answer is "not". I wouldn't. My atheism does not inform me in this regard, or any other.

What you're saying here isn't really clear - elucidate?

the buddha taught that humans are at a special point between animal and divinity - we are self-aware, yet we still suffer.

Woo....don't care. Useless to me.

the goal of buddhism is the end of human suffering


-and good luck achieving that by means of magic.

At this point I'm not clear on what you mean by 'magic'. If everyone on Earth believe in some fable that led them to be kind and good, would that be magic? We're not doing that - though we do have a POV that encourages compassion which results from a non-dualistic understanding of self. I don't see that this requires magic.

What's unsatisfactory, suffering, or the human condition? I think that your summary of where suffering comes from is woo-based, and I don't think that suffering can actually be removed by leading an ethical life or practicing "mindfulness".

Okay - when most people have their basic physical needs satisfied, they do not become happy and content. We see that some people, but not very many, have joy in their lives. They are content. Siddhartha saw this in monks and religious people, that they get some kind of psychological benefit from their beliefs. Some of them become truly good people, kind to others, self-sacrificings, yet filled with joy and contentment. He wanted to know how this works, and what he found was that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the gods they worship or the rituals they practice. His stated goal and purpose was find out how these people attain this state of mind without the woo. I should think that atheistically, that is admirable? Part of his analysis of the human condition was to separate joy and pleasure. In neurochemistry, these are responses to serotonin (joy) and dopamine (pleasure). We get pleasure from getting things, like winning, or eating a big meal, etc, but pleasure is inherently addictive. After we feel it, it's gone and leaves a need for more, in an endless cycle. This is 'attachment'. Most people struggle with attachment and desire for material things, but there is also attachment to ideas and the sense of self. The point is, this pursuit doesn't lead to that contentment and joy, in fact, it obscures it. Joy comes from being a good person and living a good life. When you remember joy, you feel it again, when you remember pleasure, you feel the lack.

Mindfulness is about keeping to a philosophical definition of reality that avoids both objectivism and subjectivism. In the system I use, a moment of reality is composed of the perception of an objectively existing but unknowable reality. It requires both a perceiver and an object, even though the true nature of that object can't be known except through the filter of perception. Most of my 'reality' is constructed in my head by my conditioned and learned responses to perceptions - but there is still stuff outside my head. Whenever I try to analyze that reality, ultimately I come to either nonsense or paradox, because that reality is 'transparent to analysis'. It's nature is emptiness. You will probably call that woo, but most quantum physicists agree.

I already layed out my problem with -all of it-. I'm a humanist. I don't think that anything you mentioned in that last post or this post is capable of achieving what you claim it sets out to achieve, I don;t think that the foundations upon which any of it are erected can possibly withstand the weight of the house built atop. I don't think that your monks have escaped the human condition, even marginally, and I don't believe that there are any "buddhas" or ever have been. I prefer rational solutions to human problems, and I place humans and human matters at the top of my list. Spirits, buddhas, karma, enlightenment, transcending suffering, none of this means anything to me. Each and every one is a deepity.

(I take it you don't need to me gut your last post anymore, and that you've gone from "what woo?" to "everyone's doing it!" at this point, right? Amusingly..this is right where we started...isn't it..with the whole "kill the priests" routine?)

Let me end this with the suggestion that none of whatever benefits you've found in buddhism actually come from buddhism (and that some of those principles you mentioned aren't all that beneficial - to anyone). I think that they are more correctly attributed to you, personally. Your potential as a human being - all of our potential. Insomuch as religion seems ever present and standing in the way of that potential, I oppose it. Insomuch as it causes others to suffer on it's count, I abhor it. When it keeps it in it's pants, I ignore it.

Well, part of that is true. Becoming Buddhist for me was similar to how some people realize they are gay - I was taking a class on the subject, and during a lecture on philosophy, I realized what was being described was my native way of thinking. I was surprised in that I'd assume I was alone and very pleased to find out there were extensions I hadn't thought of before, but that logically followed. I experience my first moment of satori in 11th grade chem class while contemplating the sentence "There are no absolutes". You are very entitled to your opinions - my only goal is to help you to understand that in principle many modern and especially Western Buddhists are on your side in the goal of making life better for people and getting rid of irrational and damaging beliefs.