Philosophical Buddhist who is still an atheist

[Angrboda]

[The Grand Nudger]

-Wonders if he can get that printed on some toilet paper-

[5thHorseman]

Apophenia, that is surprisingly good in my eyes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely, in a cheap, Hallmark sort of way.
(I'm more than a little pissed that the Dalai Lama keeps getting reincarnated as a coddled peddler of inexpensive wisdom and woo btw. I can never really decide whether or not I think he's a hapless rube, a tool; or a clever con is his own right.)

[Jeffonthenet]

I'm referring to general moral rules agreed upon by atheists and theists alike. It seems to me that both of us have transgressed seriously against these in negligence to the suffering of the third world. In truth, even if we do give a lot of our money to the third world starving, we hold on to petty material things which could save the lives of people by buying them food or vaccinations.

Why on earth would you think you have a moral obligation to help the third world countries?

I meant the starving people in them, not the country itself.

Why exactly would you imagine that holding on to the material possessions and enjoying them is immoral?

Holding on to them when they could save a life if you gave more of them away is immoral.

In fact, before you talk about the "general moral rules agreed upon by atheists and theists" - you better lay them down so that I can tell you why exactly they are bullshit. (And just me, by the way. I wouldn't be stupid enough to speak for other atheists).

Im thinking basic morality like it is wrong to hurt people because one enjoys it. If someone doesn't agree this moral rule I submit that there is something mentally wrong with them.

---

I'm referring to general moral rules agreed upon by atheists and theists alike. It seems to me that both of us have transgressed seriously against these in negligence to the suffering of the third world.

Speak for yourself.

You are totally misunderstanding my point. I do actually give quite a bit.

In truth, even if we do give a lot of our money to the third world starving, we hold on to petty material things which could save the lives of people by buying them food or vaccinations.

If sending food and vaccinations would eradicate the problems faced in third world countries there would be no third world countries by now.


http://www.builderswithoutborders.org/

[/quote]

There are lots of refugees in camps, for example, whose lives could be saved by better medical care care which could be provided if we donated more money.

[Polaris]

I have never associated Buddhism with anything other than atheism. Many followers have stated that is what attracted them to it in the first place.

[Jeffonthenet]

I don't remember a ton from my World Religions class, but I recall that there are different types of Buddhism, for example Theravada Buddhism, and their views can vary widely. I think there is a great range present from Atheistic to Theistic. When I was into Zen Buddhism I recall the Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki saying that you can be of any religion and practice Zen Buddhism.

[genkaus]

I meant the starving people in them, not the country itself.

So did I.

Holding on to them when they could save a life if you gave more of them away is immoral.

And your justification for this bare assertion is....?

Im thinking basic morality like it is wrong to hurt people because one enjoys it. If someone doesn't agree this moral rule I submit that there is something mentally wrong with them.

That says nothing about letting someone suffer out of indifference, i.e. neither hurting them nor alleviating their hurt, being immoral.

You are totally misunderstanding my point. I do actually give quite a bit.

You are the one missing the point. The question is not if you give a bit, it is why should we give a shit.

There are lots of refugees in camps, for example, whose lives could be saved by better medical care care which could be provided if we donated more money.

And we should do that because...?

[TaraJo]

Absolutely, in a cheap, Hallmark sort of way.
(I'm more than a little pissed that the Dalai Lama keeps getting reincarnated as a coddled peddler of inexpensive wisdom and woo btw. I can never really decide whether or not I think he's a hapless rube, a tool; or a clever con is his own right.)

Might be cheap and easy and simple, but it's all works better than the garbage you'd find in most holy books.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I wanted to see if there can be reasonable reconciliation on these beliefs for me.

I've been an atheist for almost a decade and a half now. Back then, I made a deal with any deity out there: if you exist and you want me to believe, it's well within your power to reach out to me so you can do that. Until then, I'm going to not believe and assume that if any God does exist, it doesn't want me to believe. As you can guess, no supernatural being has revealed themselves to me.

However, about four years ago, I had some big changes go through my life and as much as the changes were for the better in the long run, they were also very stressful at the time. Emotionally, I hit a low point; I made multiple suicide attempts, cried almost constantly and made a bad habit out of cutting myself on a fairly regular basis.

After about a year of that, things changed. One of the first things to change for me was that my personal life stabilized more and, yes, this played a big role in changing my mindset. It's hard to be emotionally stable if you aren't socially stable. However, there was more to it. I also looked up more information on gaining calmness and peace of mind and things like that. As a result of that research, I learned a lot about Eastern philosophies, especially Buddhist philosophy. The meditation, the mindfulness, the connection to the rest of the universe and the laid back perspective all resonated with me and thinking that way seemed to be a positive influence on my life.

That's not saying I believe in Buddhism as a religion. As much as the philosophy has helped, I have still had no sign from a supernatural being that has convinced me of anything. I have no reason to believe reincarnation exists or that karma is anything more than an abstract idea. In fact, most of the benefits of Buddhism for me can be interpreted as benefits via psychology. However, I know that a lot of people DO consider Buddhism a religion and they take it very seriously.

I guess what I wanted to ask is, is it reasonable to be both an atheist as far as the supernatural goes but believe in a Buddhist philosophy?

I used to have a strong bias against Buddhism for some time.
But I had changed my mind for a little after I started pondering on "Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.". I tried to make sense of it, and at the end, when I could capture it's meaning in words and could actually write them down, it really came to me that there is a philosophical truth behind some of it's teachings.

---

Absolutely, in a cheap, Hallmark sort of way.
(I'm more than a little pissed that the Dalai Lama keeps getting reincarnated as a coddled peddler of inexpensive wisdom and woo btw. I can never really decide whether or not I think he's a hapless rube, a tool; or a clever con is his own right.)

The Dalai Lama is actually a title which did not start with the first Dalai Lama it was awarded to. The first Dalai Lama to which the title was given to was actually given as the title of 3rd Dalai Lama, whose name was Sonam Gyatsho leader of the Gelug order of Lamaism(or Tibetan buddhism), two others were awarded this title posthumorously.
It actually had deep political reasons behind it, being related to a certain Altan Khan, who wanted others to believe that he was a reincarnation of Kublai Khan(And Sonam Gyatsho proclaimed him as such), and used the Lamaist ideology to make his reign legitimate where it was illegitimate, due to his missing blood relations to Chingiss Khan.