Help me out here, Ex Buddhists.

[Brian37]

My google searches are only finding an article here or an article there about people leaving Buddhism. I think everyone here knows my position that all religions are equally placebos humans invent.

Post your links in this thread and or if you know of an atheist or you were Buddhist yourself, also post that here.

[tantric]

How I lapsed:

Buddhism works. Period. When I really applied it, my life changed so much that every day was a joy to live. I ate good stuff, lived well, did meaningful work, helped others and LOVED every minute of it. At 34 I attained my childhood dream of being an ecologist. But see, I skipped a part. It's Buddha, dharma and sangha, Buddha, teaching and community. I left out the last part. In the end, I found that joy and sorrow are part of the same. I had no one to share it with. At all. I didn't love anyone *individually*, nor they me. The loneliness ate me up. So I stopped. Mostly. I bring it back some times, for a week or two, but until I can find that community, I don't dare embrace it.

BTW, you're utterly wrong about all religions being the same. Does believing that the universe is rational and comprehensible give you a nice sense of peace? It isn't. 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. That alone makes it a world apart.

[Anomalocaris]

Does quantum mechanics stand to such reason as you might learn through Buddhism? And does Buddhism expand your common sense so much you can intuit the predictions of quantum mechanics?

[tantric]

Does quantum mechanics stand to such reason as you might learn through Buddhism? And does Buddhism expand your common sense so much you can intuit the predictions of quantum mechanics?

Parts of it, yes. The nonduality part, especially. I don't find QP confusing at all - the idea of a completely objective or subjective universe is obviously unworkable. Reality isn't boolean. That statement is a translation, and I suspect a bad one, and it's not actually the Buddha, but if you think that matters, well...

"“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them." is the Hindu original.

[Brian37]

Does quantum mechanics stand to such reason as you might learn through Buddhism? And does Buddhism expand your common sense so much you can intuit the predictions of quantum mechanics?

Parts of it, yes. The nonduality part, especially. I don't find QP confusing at all - the idea of a completely objective or subjective universe is obviously unworkable. Reality isn't boolean. That statement is a translation, and I suspect a bad one, and it's not actually the Buddha, but if you think that matters, well...

"“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them." is the Hindu original.

No it does not work. Buddhism didn't invent anything. It is a religion. This is the same retrofitting after the fact every other religion does.

No religion was around 200.000 years ago. Much less 4 billion years ago, much less 14 billion years ago.

---

Nothing bad in Buddhist writings?

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/warrior...iolence-i/

From the article,

Buddha…said…”When I recall the past, I remember that I was the king of a great state…My name was Senyo, and I loved and venerated the Mahayana sutras…When I heard the Brahmins slandering the vaipulya sutras, I put them to death on the spot. Good men, as a result of that action, I never thereafter fell into hell. O good man! When we accept and defend the Mahayana sutras, we possess innumerable virtues

On top of reincarnation being a load of tripe, like every other religion you find stories of killing in the name of honor. QM does say some freaky stuff but it will never justify a comic book.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

---

There is no religion that can or should be used in place of INDEPENDENT science which does not require ANY religion. Religions are things humans invent, they are reflections of the societies people grow up in. They are not required in the least to explain anything about scientific reality.

---

Karma is a horrible concept and is really nothing more than the same concept of revenge as any other. The victim of violence of any religion hides behind their being a victim, only to turn around and get even. It is just a different form of getting even. It has nothing to do with peace.

The idea of "you reap what you sew" merely stems from our reactionary evolution when we as a species react to a threat. It is no different than any other justification for protecting the tribe of any other religion.

Karma is not a corrective concept or an act of containment anymore than the hell's of the Abrahmic traditions are corrective. The all still amount to revenge. Someone hurts you, you hurt them.

[Aoi Magi]

Brian the problem is buddhism and hinduism is mainly philosophical in nature and you cannot debate or argue with them in the same way as you can with an abrahamic religion. They do have religious aspects, but in buddhism it's quite small and is quite confusing. There are multiple buddhas, both good and bad, and they believe humans can become buddha-hood through weird suicide rituals... but those rituals are not really that widespread nor are they forced on followers...

[Brian37]

Nirvana is also another superstitious concept. It is nuts to say there is such a thing as a "perfect state". The act of going out of your way to clear your mind, is an act of training. The ability to endure and focus is the same act of training you can find in Navy Seals. There has never been a human being in our evolution that goes their entire lives without stress every second of their lives.

We are not "one" with everything. There is no such thing as a utopia and all religions, god or not, simply have gap filled with antiquated ideas of a "perfect state". Nirvana is simply a watered down more earthy concept. It is merely a temporary version of "heaven" through "meditation". Neither in any case make anyone stress free, or illness free, or death free. They are still excuses to hide behind myths.

Buddhism does not prevent violence because violence is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of human behavior. If Buddhism prevented humans from doing bad things then we should expect to see Buddhist countries lack prisons, but like every country on the face of the planet, they all have prisons.

Point this out and even the Buddhist will pull the same "They aren't doing it right because that is not what Buddha taught". It is the same "No true Scotsman" fallacy all religions pull when you call them out on it.

Only modern evolution and psychiatry and neurology and science explain why we behave the way we do.

"That's not what my religion teaches" is the line all religions pull.

If any one religion were a good explanation to the nature of human behavior, it could be applied universally. The fact is you can find kind motifs and empathy in the writings of all religions. That does not make all religions true. That should tell everyone that our empathy is in our evolution, not the religious clubs humans invent. Violence in the form of war and crime have always existed in every part of our species history and long before even the first written tradition of humans.

Buddha did not invent compassion anymore than Jesus or Allah or Hinduism. Religion merely takes what is in us and turns it into a comic book. Our appeal to empathy as a species unfortunately is clouded by our false perceptions as well and allows us to make excuses to avoid the fact that WE are doing it, not any one person in history, or any one religion in our history.

---

Brian the problem is buddhism and hinduism is mainly philosophical in nature and you cannot debate or argue with them in the same way as you can with an abrahamic religion. They do have religious aspects, but in buddhism it's quite small and is quite confusing. There are multiple buddhas, both good and bad, and they believe humans can become buddha-hood through weird suicide rituals... but those rituals are not really that widespread nor are they forced on followers...

Says who? Nope, being more earthy does not change the same ignorant past all those myths started in.

There is not one kind act or kind thing said a Buddhist or Hindu has said in the past or could say today that those outside could not say or do. Concepts of kindness are because our species evolved to cooperate. Our empathy needs no antiquated religion to explain it.

You don't need a religion to say "Be kind". "Don't harm other people". Religion takes our human behavior and turns it into a comic book. That gap filling allows us to ignore our clubs do not make us a separate species.

[Aoi Magi]

Again you are making the mistake of approaching this with the abrahamic religion view. Buddhism doesn't claim a monopoly on kindness or any other human traits, nor are they saying that it was their invention. Yes the religious rituals and other nonsense is pretty much the same as other religions but because they were imported from other religions. At it's core buddhism is based on it's philosophical aspects, whereas in the abrahamic religions you get only some bits and pieces of philosophy to cover all the ignorance.

I understand your position, but you cannot attack buddhism as a whole, but you can start off with the many contradictions in their current beliefs, like those between the hinyana and mahayana practices.

[Brian37]

Again you are making the mistake of approaching this with the abrahamic religion view. Buddhism doesn't claim a monopoly on kindness or any other human traits, nor are they saying that it was their invention. Yes the religious rituals and other nonsense is pretty much the same as other religions but because they were imported from other religions. At it's core buddhism is based on it's philosophical aspects, whereas in the abrahamic religions you get only some bits and pieces of philosophy to cover all the ignorance.

I understand your position, but you cannot attack buddhism as a whole, but you can start off with the many contradictions in their current beliefs, like those between the hinyana and mahayana practices.

Still missing my point. People form groups and because of the pretty in them they get stuck on them.

You would be dead wrong if you claimed that individuals within all three Abrahmic religions, couldn't admit others outside their label can be kind. Mostly moderates and liberals in all three also admit kindness isn't unique to them. The point is that people are raised Buddhist and or buy it at some point in their lives because something in it gives them that sense of importance and or belonging. EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON, violent or non violent does this.

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

The ideas of being kind are found with other words in ALL religions. I attack Buddhism for the same reason I attack all religions. They are all human invented constructs that at best act as social placebos, but more often than not they create in group and out group dynamics. Chinese Buddhists do not get along with Tibet. Japan is full of Buddhists as well and they don't get along with China.

Going between the words "philosophy" and "religion" are mere word games that humans use to avoid that it group think through our wishful thinking. It is the same moving the goal posts and having it both ways at the same time that Jews and Muslims use with words "race" and "religion", call them on that, then they move to ethnic and culture.

My point is that good is in our evolution, so is bad. We are all capable of cruelty and compassion. Our behavior in grouping more often than not only extends that empathy to the local. The west has had a longer history of making that empathy about law and not religion.

Buddhism does not get a pass either. It would be hard for someone who is not Buddhists in many parts of China or Asia or the Orient, to migrate and mix. At best, as a species, we mostly see the other as guests and when those "guests" as minorities start upsetting social norms, that majority reacts to it. EVEN within the same labels as sub sects.

Religion only explains our ability to group at a placebo level. It is our false perceptions that cause us to create these groups. Playing word games with "philosophy" and "religion" it is still an ignorance of our behaviors as being in us, not the clubs we invent.

Victor Stenger in "The New Atheism" in the later chapters addresses even the ancient "philosophies" of the "religions" of Asia, including Jainism and Taoism.

Jainism, Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism all started in close proximity to each other in the same way we know that Hebrew and and Christianity and Islam come from close proximity as well.

Ideas no matter if you call them philosophies once you group enough people in them to the point of creating a club or tribe to the point they affect politics, you have a religion. They are still not tools to understand scientific reality or even our natural behavior. They are merely social constructs humans invent.

[Brian37]

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entert...69859.html

Again, saying people are good while in religion does not make the label itself that will automatically make that individual good. Not even "atheist" will dictate that that individual will automatically do good or bad. Our behavior is in our evolution, not our labels.