Help me out here, Ex Buddhists.

[Anomalocaris]

[


Buddhism is NOT a philosophy, it is a religion. It has hero figures, prayers, rituals, monks, holy places. Just like every other religion.

That's a little bit like saying atheism is not a philosophy, but a religion, because many self professed atheists have had heros, rituals, holy places, and for all practical purposes prayers and monks.

The Buddhism philosophy is not explicitly antitheist. But in itself, while not rational by contempoary standards, is not theistic either. So the fact that buddhism can easily alloy with other social currents to menifest overtly theistic or religious characteristics does not make buddhist input into the resulting alloy a religion in itself.

[Brian37]

[


Buddhism is NOT a philosophy, it is a religion. It has hero figures, prayers, rituals, monks, holy places. Just like every other religion.

That's a little bit like saying atheism is not a philosophy, but a religion, because many self professed atheists have had heros, rituals, holy places, and for all practical purposes prayers and monks.

The Buddhism philosophy is not explicitly antitheist. But in itself, while not rational by contempoary standards, is not theistic either. So the fact that buddhism can easily alloy with other social currents to menifest overtly theistic or religious characteristics does not make buddhist input into the resulting alloy a religion in itself.

Nope, "atheist" only says "off" on god claims. It says nothing about that individuals education level, class, or political affiliation.

You would be wrong to claim there are no atheists that stop at "that makes no sense", without educating themselves to say the deep level as say a Dawkins or Tyson.

You'd also be wrong to say all atheists agree on economics or social views. I know atheists who value Ayn Rand whom I don't like. I know others who stupidly think a world without private business is possible and worship Che.

"Atheist" is a position on one claim only. It is the "off" position on god claims. It is not a philosophy, it is not a religion, it is not a political party, it is not an economic view.

Outside the common "off" position all atheists share, we are diverse. Atheists forming clubs only means they form clubs, but there are many like any other and those clubs do not always agree.

Now if you want to claim some atheists treat that mere position as a philosophy some do. I am no fan of treating any club as something dogmatic.

Buddhism is a religion, it is only "atheist" in that it does not have a sky hero in the personal monochromatic sense. But if you read the history of it, it is still rooted in myth and superstition.

This is brief, but again read the history of it. It did not start in a vacuum anymore than any other religion.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/buddhism.htm

[tantric]

okay. first, we most likely do not at all agree about the structure of reality. i *know* that each instance of reality is a process created by some external source triggering my senses and being chewed up and analyzed by my brain. i know that my senses can be fooled, so i mostly trust in group observation - and the scientific method, but i also know that scientific dogma has changed dramatically many times and will do so again. there is no way for me to objectively evaluate the external source that is triggering my senses - you think when you see the image is the world in front of you, but it's really a very distorted shadow in your head.

in your head, you have a set of rules and assumptions that you use to make sense out of reality and life. for instance, epistemology - how do you recognize truth? for xtians, it's divine relevation, for me and likely you, it's the scientific method. eschatology - there is no afterlife, teleology - do you have a purpose in life? mine is bettering the world. theology - gods are not real things, they are idea things, like 'democracy'. ie, symbols. worshiping gods is useless - they are just attention addicts. it goes on.

when i tally those answers, you have a summary of your comprehensive world view. if the person is christian, you call it religious nonsense. if it's you, well, it's just the truth, isn't that obvious? of course, the christian thinks the same - everyone believes their own religion.

the buddha wanted to know why monks and other such guys seemed happy in a world filled by disease, suffering and death. he investigated. first he threw out deprivation, saying the mind must have its basic needs met to function (buddhists don't fast or such). he tried several other approaches, then said, dammit, i'm gonna sit here under this cotton-pickin tree til i figure it out. and he did. he dharma is a logical analysis of why people lead such unsatisfying lives, filled with suffering (mental, not physical) and how to deal with it. the core of the practice is the idea that what gods the monks were worshipping were irrelevant, at best, and that it is the lifestyle of mindfulness, simple living and food and trying really hard to be a good person. i can't for the life of me find anything you could object to in this.

the fact that buddhists are human and do hate, awful human things isn't surprising. religions get coopted during state formation, to unite tribes that don't share a culture, and thus it becomes a tool of the state. same thing that happened to marxism/leninism and maoism (all state atheists) the buddha didn't really want the church, be he saw that people would just do it anyway after he died, so he laid out some guidelines, most of which were ignored.

[Brian37]

[


Buddhism is NOT a philosophy, it is a religion. It has hero figures, prayers, rituals, monks, holy places. Just like every other religion.

That's a little bit like saying atheism is not a philosophy, but a religion, because  many self professed atheists have had heros, rituals, holy places, and for all practical purposes prayers and monks.

The Buddhism philosophy is not explicitly antitheist.  But in itself, while not rational by contempoary standards, is not theistic either.   So the fact that buddhism can easily alloy with other social currents to menifest overtly theistic or religious characteristics does not make buddhist input into the resulting alloy a religion in itself.

An attempt to be more earthy, yes, but it is a myth like every other human invented religion. The first Buddha was depicted as a price and born of a queen. And some of his birth depictions have him being born out of Queen Maya's side and not her vagina. Back then humanity falsely attributed their success to the "divine". And the idea of purity in females was also popular. I am not arguing the existence of a first Buddha, but just in that like all humans, that religion to was started by a man like all others in a scientific age of ignorance like all others.

[tantric]

so, what defines this 'scientific age'? are the greeks involved? the egyptians empirically tested medicines (in some cases). did it start with aristotle? so everything before was hogwash and after shining truth? nonsense. empirical experimentation and rational deduction occurred all over the ancient world. during the enlightenment (haha) in europe, it came to be the dominant paradigm, coupled with advanced in information tech that created a feed back effect. one thing is clear about Siddharta Gautama - he was stark genius with a way of thinking that was almost compulsively rational, and he set about understanding how religion works. his teaching are not like the memetic infections of most faiths - they started out as a vaccine against such. the only part he cared about was how monks lived serenely in an imperfect world. empirically investigating the best way to lead a happy life is perfectly possible. and he didn't even claim to have the only way - just one.

seriously, at least watch 'the little buddha' before you trash a religion

[Whateverist]

Does believing that the universe is rational and comprehensible give you a nice sense of peace? It isn't.

The world isn't rational or comprehensible. But we can be. That doesn't mean we always reason well or rationally. But I think most of us would rate how well we're doing based on our ability to predict. The amount of peace it provides isn't really the metric most of use to evaluate our world view, though some of us may have fooled ourselves about this.

At least the Buddha taught us:  Believe nothing, no matter who says it, not even if I say it, unless it stands to reason and fits with your common sense.

Well that much is good advice. Is this part where a buddhist would advise us if we meet the buddha on the road, kill him? Don't worry. I don't take that literally.

[Brian37]

Look, sorry it steps on humans toes, but there is NOTHING original about any human invented religion. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs had no care whatsoever for the survival of that species, and why humans stupidly think their artificial concocted clubs will magically make them more special is absurd. No you cannot rid the world of religion, but to pretend it is more than a placebo humans invent is absurd.

I am getting tired of my species giving special pleading to any religion. I think if we are to manage our differences better we need to get over ourselves and put those labels on the BACK BURNER. Religions are a reflection of our species gap filling, nothing more. No it is not sexy, but that is the reality and we need to stop thinking our labels are special to our planet or the universe.

[tantric]

Look, sorry it steps on humans toes, but there is NOTHING original about any human invented religion.

wow, that's a doozie. you contend that every posit put forth by every religion existed outside of that religion and was merely copied?

okay, do you understand the role of religion/ideology in state formation? tribal states, usually kingdom, are one stage, but eventually a kingdom will conquer its neighbors and a multiethnic state will be created - usually with one tribe on top. this is unstable. the solution is using religion and/or ideology to unite different ethnic groups. the soviet union is a perfect case - but its founders clearly did not understand the process of human cultural evolution. rather than erasing all those religions and ethnicities, the state ended up turning marxism into a religion, complete with a sacred text, martyrs and heroes, heretics and a nice inquisition or two, and even a shrine with the messiah's pickled body. the usgov hit on something special - the ideology of keeping religion out of politics, which has been very successful. still, there are people who believe in 'freedom, justice and the american way' with absolute fanaticism. many of them are christians, the camp that thinks the usgov is a 'christian nation' but by and large we've avoided the fate of marxism in the ussr. that doesn't mean we can't concoct some Secular Humanist shit and make it our state ideology and run with it - frankly, that's exactly what people like you are trying to do. hell, no. fanaticism is the enemy of peace.  if you think you know the absolute truth, and have some right to force it on others, that's you, regardless of what you believe, even if i share many of your beliefs. these are the first three of the fourteen precepts of engaged buddhism. consider:

1) Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

2)Do not think the knowledge you presently possess is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice nonattachment from views in order to be open to receive others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

3)Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.

[Brian37]

No religion magically pops out of dirt. Humans create new clubs based on surrounding and prior motifs. Buddhism isn't any different. The first Buddha had parents and a surrounding society and prior claims he became aware of and built on. Just like we can accept that Christianity came form Jews.

Religion was never required for evolution to occur otherwise we would see evidence of the dinosaurs creating their own monuments to their gods. We would see cockroach gods. If one can accept that the meteor had no concern for the survival of dinosaurs why is our species so stuck on our current placebos?

It isn't any sort of call to end religion by force, just a statement of fact as to why humans invent them. Humans seek to group, humans also make attempts to explain the world around them. The problem is far more often than not our species perceptions of reality are notoriously flawed. Whatever good you can find in Buddhism you can find similar motifs in every religion. Which says to me our species behavior isn't in the labels but in our evolution.

Religion exists, not because humans need it, it exists because our species history of gap filling. For the same reason one rightfully rejects the polytheism of the ancient Egyptians despite their 3,000 year success.

---

Please drop the old cold war crap. No sane atheist I would call sane should want the west to become Stalin's Russia. And even with atheists, they also miss it when I say not even "atheist" should be worshiped as a word or treated like a moral code. "Atheist" merely means off, nothing more. I get a lip twitch from atheists when they try to claim "when we get in the majority we will treat you better". NO, that type of short term thinking is due to our current status of being a minority, but we won't be around hundred of years from now regardless of who the majority becomes. Not even atheists should ever think they are above cruelty.

Now when you talk of Stalin, he had more in common with a god than I do. Both blind loyalty to a religion or blind loyalty to one party, are still blind loyalty.

DONT STUPIDLY accuse me as being the same fascist type as state fascism or religious fascism. I am extremely Jeffersonian in valuing anti monopoly concepts where no one aspect of society gets too much power. But I am also very Jeffersonian in saying sorry just because you like what you believe does not mean it deserves to be free from blasphemy. Having the right to make a claim is a given, but others also have the right to criticize that claim. Human rights are a given, but ideas by themselves do not have rights outside the ability to express them. Others also have the right to respond to what you claim.

---

NOT ABOUT FORCE !

Saying the earth revolves around the sun doesn't take away others rights to say stupid shit that the sun revolves around the earth. When I say Buddhism doesn't get a pass, I am not trying to force it out of existence. I am merely saying it is a human invention like all other religions.

No one, especially not me is advocating a utopia. I am simply putting the facts out there. What others do with them in accepting them or rejecting them is their business.

[Mudhammam]

Saying the earth revolves around the sun doesn't take away others rights to say stupid shit that the sun revolves around the earth. When I say Buddhism doesn't get a pass, I am not trying to force it out of existence. I am merely saying it is a human invention like all other religions.

Pretty much everything in our lives are human inventions. We tolerate and sometimes promote the useful ones, and criticize and hope to diminish those that are harmful. Superstitious ideologies are generally harmful so to that extent we probably agree, but superstition isn't required to follow the teachings and practices of the Buddha, as far as I can tell. That's why people say it's a philosophy, because the religious aspect doesn't mean anything to them. If you want to argue that Buddhist philosophy and the practices it promotes are harmful, you should try a little harder than simply saying, "Buddhism = religion! Religion = human invention!! Human inventions = stupid!!! Stupid = bad!!!!"