Buddhist atheists

[Napoléon]

What on Gods green earth are you rambling on about?

1.Atheism has nothing to do with faith
2.Whether it is your faith that there is no god
3.an atheist with faith is a very shabby creature

Is that your version of lucid thinking? each statement contradicts the other! well done!

I thought chuck was being a little harsh when he called you a moron but I stand corrected. Not a single one of those statements contradicts. If ofcourse you understand them correctly.

I asked if atheist who happen to also be buddhists have any issues with the fact that buddhism requires faith, as demonstrated in the OP. What your rambling excuse for a chance to insult me was all about I have no idea, incoherent rambling with a bit of abuse

The point which chuck was making, which clearly flew over your head, is that atheism doesn't deal in faith at all. So why a budhists' view would matter in regards to faith is beyond both myself, chuck, and any other people reading this who have a proper understanding of what atheism actually is.

[Faith No More]

We do actually have an atheistic Buddhist on this site, but he hasn't come around in a while. Although, how much of an actual Buddhist he is is questionable, because they're not supposed to have that firey temper.

[fuckass365]

What on Gods green earth are you rambling on about?

It's rather grey, I'd say he's doing a shit job maintaining it.

[Epimethean]

'Mahayana Buddhism is not only intellectual, but it is also devotional ... in Mahayana, Buddha was taken as God, as Supreme Reality itself that descended on the earth in human form for the good of mankind. The concept of Buddha (as equal to God in theistic systems) was never as a creator but as Divine Love that out of compassion (karuna) embodied itself in human form to uplift suffering humanity. He was worshipped with fervent devotion... He represents the Absolute (paramartha satya), devoid of all plurality (sarva-prapancanta-vinirmukta) and has no beginning, middle and end ... Buddha ... is eternal, immutable ... As such He represents Dharmakaya.

I found this interesting, sounds very much like the Christian view of Jesus in many ways.

Perhaps you see one of the sources from which your seedy sect stole its stuff?

[Angrboda]

Meh.

First, you have to understand that Buddhism is not a unified faith like Catholicism. It is a great river with many tributaries, including atheistic ones, as well as frankly theistic ones (The Pure Land Sect comes to mind). While there is no holy book per se, there are multiple canons corresponding to some of the different branches, with each assigning credibility and authority to different sets of texts, usually based on presumed records of the Buddha's direct teachings; mind you, this is a generalization and a generalization only. While Buddhism doesn't on the whole require belief in gods, or interest in them if they exist, most streams of Buddhism incorporate the metaphysical doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation. Given that these beliefs are not particularly well evidenced, most atheists, being skeptical of unsubstantiated metaphysical doctrines, would chafe at this. But then, as noted, there is room for great variation between particular Buddhists and particular Buddhisms, as well as among particular atheists. (I know of a few atheists who consider their atheism to consist in rejecting all supernatural beliefs; they obviously would find the metaphysics objectionable.)

Beyond that are matters which, again, vary amongst believers, and Buddhisms to believe in. Many east Asian Buddhisms incorporate a praxis of meditation. Many Buddhisms posit rather unorthodox views on psychology and the mind. And most, entail ritual obligations, all the way from the sensible, such as the eightfold path, to the bizarre, like the guru relationship in some Vajrayana Buddhisms. I'm told things are a lot less ritualistic in the West than the East, but that's from word of mouth. And again, variation amongst the elements of the particular person's Buddhist beliefs, their particular atheist views, and the norms of the particular Buddhism can all co-vary to create an enormously complex landscape.

My hunch tells me the more purely humanist, secular Buddhisms are largely the province of Western practitioners, but that's just a guess.

Anyway, clear as mud, eh?


Anyway, take this with a grain of salt. I am not a Buddhist in spite of several very temporary conversions. I have an interest in religion in general and the streams of Buddhism intersected with my Taoism in China, so I am in some ways more familiar than I might be, but also likely more biased than any practicing Buddhist.

For your investigation:
by Stephen Batchelor
also by Stephen Batchelor

[Angrboda]

It occurred to me that there is a viewpoint on Buddhism that I left out that is very pertinent to your question. Some, if not many, view Buddhism as more a way to live a good life, than as a path to any kind of salvation through karma and reincarnation. In this light, the practice of Buddhism can be seen as a path to inner peace and justice, even viewing the Buddha as less a religious figure, but more a guide to the good life, and a moral teacher, in the same way that some may emphasize the aspect of Jesus as a moral teacher, with or without accepting his divinity — even without accepting his historicity (or its veracity). I've even read accounts that suggest that the Buddha himself in his first person teaching often demurred on the question of reincarnation and Karma, preferring to focus on the here and now. In this aspect, for some, Buddhism's metaphysical doctrines can be viewed in the same light as the belief in gods in Buddhism, that yes they are there, but they're just not important. These types of Buddhism likely would emphasize the aspects of compassion, which is core to Mahayana Buddhisms, and the practice of detachment as noted in the four noble truths (the practice of which, is greatly misunderstood by Westerners), and the moral guidance offered by frameworks such as the eightfold path, and that provided by the wisdom of Buddhist sages throughout the ages.

So in that sense, yes, there are aspects which might appeal to an atheist, just as they appeal to anyone.

(I'm not well versed on the literature here, but authors like the Vietnamese Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh and the Buddhist nun Pema Chodron may help. I have been looking for a good text on the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, and I found a book that discusses it and which appears to give a good and substantial introduction to real Buddhism, apart from what I discuss in this post. That book is by Rupert Gethin.)

[Polaris]

The Buddhists who are not atheists are not adhering to traditional Buddhism. Atheism just means a lack of belief in God and from what I have gathered, there are no gods in traditional Buddhism, but I am sure with the amount of Westerners trying new age religions, they managed to insert a god into their version of the religion.

[Rev. Rye]

Doesn't the six realms of buddhism prove problematic then?

1.God realm
2.Demi-God realm
3.Human realm
4.Animal realm
5.Hungry Ghost realm
6.Hell realm

Look at "Desire Realm" on Wikipedia. The ideas of a "God Realm" and a "Hell Realm" are very different from the conceptions you may be used to.

Or do atheists just ignore that part? Isn't that cherry picking?

People cherry-pick from Religions all the time. I'm sure you'd find the idea of stoning disobedient children to be abhorrent, even though Jesus called out the religious authorities of his day in Mark 7 for refusing to carry this particular commandment out.

[Polaris]

I think Mark 7 was more about the Pharisees adding to the belief system than about the need for stoning.

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

9 And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

[Angrboda]

@Polaris: I believe you are incorrect, as noted in my discussion. But even those gods that are accepted to exist in Buddhisms are not like the god of Judeo-Christian-Islam, they are not omnipotent determiner's of our life, fate and destiny. The gods in Buddhism are no different from lesser mortals such as humans, except that they are much, much more powerful than puny humans. But my understanding is that, traditionally, the gods were no less subject to the wheel of samsara, mortal, and karmically bound. As a matter of fact, the accounts I've read place the gods as less than human in a critical respect. Animals lower than us don't have the necessary stuff, karmically or mentally, to reach nirvana, the extinguishment of reincarnation from where they are; they need to be reincarnated as a human first. And the gods are in a similar position, as being as powerful they are, they don't experience much suffering (dukkha), and their power and invulnerability makes them lazy, and are not really motivated to work towards enlightenment and release in moksha/nirvana; so they too won't reach extinguishment from where they are. Only by being reincarnated as a human do you have a chance of entering the stream (reaching the point of no return), and moving on to enlightenment and nirvana. Now this is obviously a self-serving rationalization, but that is the classic picture as I understand it of gods in Buddhism.

(Again, this is a generalization, and probably only purely applies to one tradition of Buddhism at one time; Buddhism has diversified greatly with time, and I'm not real knowledgeable about the Pure Land Sect (or Nichiren Buddhism), but it seems centered around a god-like Boddhissatva, Amhitaba (sp?), who can basically whisk you off to enlightenment if you say the magic word. And things are not always pure. The figure referred to as the Goddess of Mercy, is sometimes viewed as a mere Boddhissatva, and sometimes as a goddess, and she is claimed in both forms in Buddhism, Taoism and folk religion in China and east Asia. [As a Boddhissatva, she is sometimes referred to as Kwan Yin or Guan Yin, with the appropriate titles, honorifics and such added.])