NationStates Jolt Archive

I have listed the poll options with what came to my mind. There may be others and I am interested to hear them. I figured the best way to do this would be to address each option with a bit more information:

1. I haven't a clue about Buddhism

The main goal of Buddhism is to attain enlightenment, which is a state of infinite freedom, compassion and wisdom. This is not accomplished by appealing to some supernatural entity, but by attaining the realization that one already has everything they need to achieve such a state. How to go about achieving such a state varies from sect to sect, but the basics are having faith that what one does will be effective, study of Buddhist teachings, and practice taking on the form of meditation and prayer.

2. It's just another religion, so that makes it bad by default

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx
I think what Marx was trying to say is that religion encourages people to resign themselves to a mundane existence in which real happiness can only be achieved through death. I would say Buddhism is just the opposite of that. It encourages people to take complete responsibility for their life. Death is not a release from life, but a brief respite before one is thrust back into existence. If one does not deal with the difficulties in life, the difficulties will keep being encountered lifetime after lifetime until one finally decides to confront them.

3. It's just Christianity where they replace "Jesus" with "Buddha"

No. When people speak of Buddha as a person, they are usually referring to Siddhartha Gautama, an Indian prince that was born somewhere around 500BCE. The word is actually a title, meaning "Enlightened One" and everyone , in theory, has the potential to become a "Buddha". In Buddhism, it is the teachings, or dharma, that are revered, rather than the person.

4. I'm a firm believer in scientific thought, which would not be compatible with Buddhism

On the contrary, Buddhism is completely compatible with scientific thought. Many of the explanations for effects observed in elementary particle physics are striking paralells to Buddhist concepts.

5. I don't have any problems. Why would I want a religion?

Everyone has problems, but some people are so used to them, they no longer appear to be problems as much as facts of life. Be that as it may, Buddhism allows people not only to recognise problems, but provides them with a means to overcome them, thereby securing a greater happiness.

If anyone has any questions or comments, I would be happy to discuss them.

if you havent noticed, buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy or self help movement. the vast majority of buddhists believe in one or many gods. buddhism doesnt have an official god but buddhists DO. they just have different gods in different locations.

the theory of karma, reincarnation and nirvana is as much a superstition as any other religious belief. it doesnt make any sense and it isnt "true".

so why would i want to be buddhist?

I'm an agnostic.

I'm not a buddhist because one of the big things not to do is drink or do drugs. I don't particularly agree with the reasoning behind not doing either.

the vast majority of buddhists believe in one or many gods. buddhism doesnt have an official god but buddhists DO.

the same could be said of libertarians but that dosn't make them a religion

when your teeth look like this:

http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/9961/gross0hr.jpg

you need every religion you can get your hands on

the same could be said of libertarians but that dosn't make them a religion
yeah but the libertarians dont tell me how to run my afterlife.

Other, I'm an agnostic, with atheistic leanings, and I think that suffering cannot ever be elminated in any way, except the finality of oblivion that may come with death.

Anyway, many people believe in coming up with their own rules, rather than having them dictated.

I'm okay with Buddhist acceptance of the world as it is, but I happen to disagree that the world is an illusionary state of perpetual suffering (at least, that's what I understand the Buddhist philosophy to be).

Also, I'd like to hear what these supposed similarities to quantum physics are. So far I've heard a bunch of new-agers spouting off about them, and a few skeptics saying that they don't exist, but I haven't actually heard what they ARE.

It's mostly the reincarnation stuff.

Also, I'd like to hear what these supposed similarities to quantum physics are. So far I've heard a bunch of new-agers spouting off about them, and a few skeptics saying that they don't exist, but I haven't actually heard what they ARE.
I can't really think of any similarities... and I've done some quantum and studied some buddhism.
Unless it requires more study into each to see the similarities or something.

if you havent noticed, buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy or self help movement. the vast majority of buddhists believe in one or many gods. buddhism doesnt have an official god but buddhists DO. they just have different gods in different locations.
I can't speak for all Buddhists, but this is what I believe:
Any references to gods, demons, or supernatural creatures in Buddhist teachings are symbolic representations of concepts rather than supernatural entities. Even in today's society, people talk about someone being posessed by a "green eyed monster" when referring to jealousy. Surely nobody thinks there is some supernatural being inhabiting them that's making them jealous.

the theory of karma, reincarnation and nirvana is as much a superstition as any other religious belief. it doesnt make any sense and it isnt "true".

Lots of things don't make sense, but that doesn't make them false. Rather than ask if something is true or not, the better question would be why would someone want to believe this? Basically, they are all related:

Karma - the effects of the present are the result of causes of the past. Why would anyone want to believe in karma? Because then they could accept responsibility for their life and do something. If someone merely chalks up their life as "things happen", they in no way feel responsible for them and are disinclined to do anything about them. The more one places responsibility on outside agencies for one's problems, the less power one has to deal with the problem.

Reincarnation - do it until you get it right. People avoid problems hoping they will go away, even to the point of thinking that in death, they can escape them. By accepting reincarnation, one is more inclined to deal with life instead of hoping it will go away, which it won't.

Nirvana - once there is nothing left to do, then I will cease to exist. In order for there to be nothing left to do, everything everywhere would have to have achieved enlighenment.

so why would i want to be buddhist?

Without knowing what challenges you are facing in life, I couldn't tell you.

I keep bringing up problems because I've determined that happiness results not from having a problem free life but from overcoming problems. With such a view, difficulties are seen as opportunities rather than setbacks.

I have listed the poll options with what came to my mind. There may be others and I am interested to hear them. I figured the best way to do this would be to address each option with a bit more information:

1. I haven't a clue about Buddhism

The main goal of Buddhism is to attain enlightenment, which is a state of infinite freedom, compassion and wisdom. This is not accomplished by appealing to some supernatural entity, but by attaining the realization that one already has everything they need to achieve such a state. How to go about achieving such a state varies from sect to sect, but the basics are having faith that what one does will be effective, study of Buddhist teachings, and practice taking on the form of meditation and prayer.
Very different from other religions then, innit?
Seriously, it's a system of ethic rules, and advice on how to live. I think it's (generally speaking) a rather nice one, but I prefer to work such things out on my own.

2. It's just another religion, so that makes it bad by default

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Karl Marx
I think what Marx was trying to say is that religion encourages people to resign themselves to a mundane existence in which real happiness can only be achieved through death. I would say Buddhism is just the opposite of that. It encourages people to take complete responsibility for their life. Death is not a release from life, but a brief respite before one is thrust back into existence. If one does not deal with the difficulties in life, the difficulties will keep being encountered lifetime after lifetime until one finally decides to confront them.
Well, I'm quite certain he wasn't overly concerned with Buddhism. It usually doesn't result in the things he complained about. Besides, Marx himself worked with at least one Christian Anarchist, so take it for what it is: social criticism.

3. It's just Christianity where they replace "Jesus" with "Buddha"

No. When people speak of Buddha as a person, they are usually referring to Siddhartha Gautama, an Indian prince that was born somewhere around 500BCE. The word is actually a title, meaning "Enlightened One" and everyone , in theory, has the potential to become a "Buddha". In Buddhism, it is the teachings, or dharma, that are revered, rather than the person.
That depends quite a lot on the particular brand of Buddhism, doesn't it?
But sure, in theory, Buddha was just a guy who sat under a tree & realized that it's better to help people, than have them pay tribute to you.

4. I'm a firm believer in scientific thought, which would not be compatible with Buddhism

On the contrary, Buddhism is completely compatible with scientific thought. Many of the explanations for effects observed in elementary particle physics are striking paralells to Buddhist concepts.
Mmm. And even better: Buddhism doesn't give a damn. It'll work, regardless of what science ever comes up with. Methinks a few other religions could learn something from that.

5. I don't have any problems. Why would I want a religion?

Everyone has problems, but some people are so used to them, they no longer appear to be problems as much as facts of life. Be that as it may, Buddhism allows people not only to recognise problems, but provides them with a means to overcome them, thereby securing a greater happiness.
That's a truth with massive modifications. Sure, Buddhism teaches people how to handle their emotions. And I agree some of what it teaches is immensely useful stuff for any human being.

Be that as it may, I disagree the implication that everyone would be happier & have a better time in this world, if they became Buddhists. As far as I know, Buddhism itself disagrees with that conclusion.

I think what you're doing here is no different from what any other religious recruiting officer does. You should show others how it improves your life, and the impact you have on the world. You should not be trying to lure or pursuade people to follow your example, eh messiah?

Some people just aren't build for religion. I, for example, agree wholeheartedly with the majority of Buddhist teachings. But it doesn't make the concept attractive to me. I'd much rather work stuff out on my own. And don't worry, if I feel I fail, I'm not gonna blame it on a cult.

I'm an agnostic.

I'm not a buddhist because one of the big things not to do is drink or do drugs. I don't particularly agree with the reasoning behind not doing either.
You must be thinking of Theravada, which is a branch of Buddhism that is devoted to developing one's own enlightenment. The other major branch of Buddhism is Mahayana Buddhism which one seeks to help others develop enlightenment even while they're working on their own. If you want to drink or do drugs, that's fine.You may decide otherwise later, or maybe not. Actually, I know many Buddhists that do both.


Other, I'm an agnostic, with atheistic leanings, and I think that suffering cannot ever be elminated in any way, except the finality of oblivion that may come with death.

Anyway, many people believe in coming up with their own rules, rather than having them dictated.

That is precisely the point of Buddhism. Suffering cannot be eliminated. Neither can sickness, old age or death. However, it can be transformed into a source of happiness.

As for the rules, nobody dictates them to you. All the sutras begin with "This is what I heard:". There is no pressure to accept anything. You either choose to accept it, or not. You don't "have" to believe anything.

I'm okay with Buddhist acceptance of the world as it is, but I happen to disagree that the world is an illusionary state of perpetual suffering (at least, that's what I understand the Buddhist philosophy to be).

Also, I'd like to hear what these supposed similarities to quantum physics are. So far I've heard a bunch of new-agers spouting off about them, and a few skeptics saying that they don't exist, but I haven't actually heard what they ARE.

See above as far as suffering goes. As far as quantum physics goes, virtual particles neither exist or not exist, but rather are "potentials" for existence. This would correlate to the state of ku, a Buddhist term meaning "emptiness". Not emptiness in the sense of nothing, but emptiness in the sense of "containing infinite possibilities".

As far as other theories go the Buddhist idea of "the interconnectedness of all things" correlates well with chaos theory. If you can understand one, the other makes more sense.


Be that as it may, I disagree the implication that everyone would be happier & have a better time in this world, if they became Buddhists. As far as I know, Buddhism itself disagrees with that conclusion.

I think what you're doing here is no different from what any other religious recruiting officer does. You should show others how it improves your life, and the impact you have on the world. You should not be trying to lure or pursuade people to follow your example, eh messiah?

Some people just aren't build for religion. I, for example, agree wholeheartedly with the majority of Buddhist teachings. But it doesn't make the concept attractive to me. I'd much rather work stuff out on my own. And don't worry, if I feel I fail, I'm not gonna blame it on a cult.
I cropped your post down to the last part for brevity. I believe I can address your points though. I will agree that the world will not be full of Buddhists eventually. It's the diversity of beliefs that makes sharing them more interesting. The key to having one's own beliefs respected is to respect the beliefs of others.

Every day I show people how it improves my life and through my practices, I try to improve the lives of others. The intent is not to lure or persuade anyone as much as provide an option that may have not been previously considered. Many people think that the only way to have any spiritual development is to be a deist. I wanted to say that I have discovered otherwise and if anyone's interested, there is an option.

Some people aren't built for religion. For that matter, some people are not built for Buddhism. They have deism thoroughly lodged in their brain and no amount of talk otherwise could shift it. For those people, I try to encourage them to develop their faith as much as possible.

Really though, Buddhism is about working it out on your own. Many different schools merely provide a path. It's up to the individual as to whether to follow it and make their own conclusions about its validity.

The title of the thread,
"Why Aren't More Atheists Buddhists?"

Because the two are mutually exclusive. You see, you can't be both Atheist and Buddhist. Your title is self-defeating.

Many of the explanations for effects observed in elementary particle physics are striking paralells to Buddhist concepts.
Also, I'd like to hear what these supposed similarities to quantum physics are.
As far as quantum physics goes, virtual particles neither exist or not exist, but rather are "potentials" for existence. This would correlate to the state of ku, a Buddhist term meaning "emptiness".
As far as other theories go the Buddhist idea of "the interconnectedness of all things" correlates well with chaos theory.

Yikes, this brings up bad memories of a book I read called Doubt and Certainty. Authored by some particle theorist and a buddhist, I would refer you to it if I didn't think it was worthless. They basically spent 500 pages trying to explain the above, and I was left less than convinced. I'm sure I could dig out some knowledge in the back of my brain somewhere if you were further interested.

The title of the thread,
"Why Aren't More Atheists Buddhists?"

Because the two are mutually exclusive. You see, you can't be both Atheist and Buddhist. Your title is self-defeating.

Why not? There is no belief in anything that is supernatural in Buddhism, let alone supernatural beings. It's not something that tells you how things are as much as it is a way to look at things.

Why not? There is no belief in anything that is supernatural in Buddhism, let alone supernatural beings. It's not something that tells you how things are as much as it is a way to look at things. Well, simply put, Buddhism is a religion. Atheism is the lack of religion. Regardless of the specific methodology or practices involved, Buddhism is regarded as a religion.

From Wiki, the free encyclopedia,
"While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture) ... some Buddhist schools associate with [the supernatural] via ritual. ... The Buddha taught the [Four Noble Truths] ... In order to fully understand the noble truths and investigate whether they were in fact true, Buddha recommended that a certain lifestyle or path be followed [the Eightfold Path]. The Eightfold Path essentially consists of meditation, following the precepts, and cultivating the positive converse of the precepts. The Path may also be thought of as a way of developing śīla, meaning mental and moral discipline."

I think that's enough. The article also talks about other Buddhist principles and practices, such as vegetarianism. These are all things ascribed to a religon. Buddhism explains what the followers should seek and how to attain it, like any religous doctrine. Atheism does not provide any religous doctrine. Atheism is the lack of belief in a diety and any religous faiths or practices.

The title of the thread, "Why Aren't More Atheists Buddhists?"

Because the two are mutually exclusive. You see, you can't be both Atheist and Buddhist. Your title is self-defeating. Actually Buddhism is technically an Atheistic religion, since Buddhism itself does not involve the worship of any deity.
So Buddhists can be Atheists, in fact most of the ones that I have met are.

Personally Buddhism is one of my favorite religions (though I don't have I very high view of religions so that isn't saying much). And I think the world would be a better place if more people who felt the need to be religious became Buddhists instead of members of most monotheistic religions.

But then I'm an atheist/agnostic thing (don't like either term, depending how people define them I can be both or neither.) and I don't feel the need to be religious.

One thing I never got. Religious people always say that their religion helps make their lives better because their belief in the after life (amongst other things, but what happens after death is the most common example) helps them take control of their lives.
I would have thought that someone like me who belives that you only get one shot at life, after that you don't exist. So you better do it right. Would take more control of their life more than someone who believes that they can try again if they don't get it right, or that they go to the afterlife where everything is sweet.
Faith is a funny thing.

5. I don't have any problems. Why would I want a religion?

Everyone has problems, but some people are so used to them, they no longer appear to be problems as much as facts of life. Be that as it may, Buddhism allows people not only to recognise problems, but provides them with a means to overcome them, thereby securing a greater happiness.
Every day I show people how it improves my life and through my practices, I try to improve the lives of others. The intent is not to lure or persuade anyone as much as provide an option that may have not been previously considered. Many people think that the only way to have any spiritual development is to be a deist. I wanted to say that I have discovered otherwise and if anyone's interested, there is an option.

Some people aren't built for religion. For that matter, some people are not built for Buddhism. They have deism thoroughly lodged in their brain and no amount of talk otherwise could shift it. For those people, I try to encourage them to develop their faith as much as possible.
I'm sorry, but to me the above is a contradiction. I think perhaps you try to improve the lives of others with Buddhism. And to the best of my knowledge, you should be trying to improve the lives of others, simply because it's a goal worth persuing. I've never heard Buddhists were supposed to offer their religion to others, without being invited to do so.
Really though, Buddhism is about working it out on your own. Many different schools merely provide a path. It's up to the individual as to whether to follow it and make their own conclusions about its validity.
Call it a path if you with, I'd call it methodology. Buddhism teaches various ways of handling things. Methods.
To me, a cruicial part of my personal freedom, is the opportunity to do that on my own. If I need help, I'll ask - and not on NS General either. Thank you.

I'm a Buddhist of sorts.

I believe that this existence is pain (samsara) and that you have to seek nirvana in every moment through escapism (drugs, going to nationstates, movies, computergames, roleplaying etc.) That is my Dharma :D

I believe that in doing what I do, I follow both the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. I just don't need no steenking monks sapphran robes to tell me what to do.

Well, simply put, Buddhism is a religion. Atheism is the lack of religion. Regardless of the specific methodology or practices involved, Buddhism is regarded as a religion.

<Mega snipping>
I'm sorry, what? Since when did the term atheism become about religion? It's about divinity, and more specifically personificated deities.

Ancestor worthship, spiritualism, belief in the supreme, Buddhism, general superstition, and all manner of other stuff, is perfectly atheistic behaviour.

All non-god-worthshipping Buddhists are atheists. General faith in various things doesn't have anything to do with the term.

I really do not see why I should even consider becoming a buddist just because it's the new fad and a 'trendy' thing to be. Why would I want to follow an east asian philosophy which incorporates such irrational beliefs as the afterlife and mystical enlightenment? Even if I converted now, it would only be for shallow self serving reasons such as self improvement, which is just wrong. It should be because you have faith in something.

Why aren't more believers Moslem?

(I noticed this annoying habit with Westerners: if we're talking about religion, we're talking about Christianity unless otherwise specified. Check it out: most of the threds on "religion" are actually threads on Christianity.)

Athiest here, Buddhism certainly interests me, and if there was a buddhist temple anywhere within 150 miles I might take it up. The texts are a bit dense for the novice without some explanation.

Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch gives me a headache...

Buddhism is the only religion I can understand the real meaning of, and the reason behind the rules. Had I been a believer, I most likely would be buddhist.

i'm quite interested in buddhism, as a usually a-religious person. problem is a) i don't have any time for religion/prayer/any of that nonsense in my life as it is, and b) i like many of the ideals, philosophies, ways of living life in the real world, but i simply cannot believe in 'the power of prayer' (or any of that nonsense). if i could be a buddhist who didn't pray, i might be more inclined... it still requires faith in the religion (unlike a simple philosophy would), and that is something i just don't have.

would have chosen other....

personally i've never liked any form of manual. The fun's in trying to work these things out for yourself!

it worked for the clock on the VCR it will work in life!

I agree with much of the tenets of Buddihisim, but certainly not all of them.
But as an athiest, the only real benefit of Buddhisim, is that its not Christianity, nor does it demand, or require its followers to convert others.
However, it too, is a belief system invented to provide man with a spiritual crutch.
As such, I cant really get into it.
Its just another mythology, intended to provide answers, to the weak-willed.
it does however, seem much more well thought out, and logical than Christianity.
Certainly kinder and gentler.

4. I'm a firm believer in scientific thought, which would not be compatible with Buddhism

On the contrary, Buddhism is completely compatible with scientific thought. Many of the explanations for effects observed in elementary particle physics are striking paralells to Buddhist concepts.


Examples please?

Why aren't more believers Moslem?

(I noticed this annoying habit with Westerners: if we're talking about religion, we're talking about Christianity unless otherwise specified. Check it out: most of the threds on "religion" are actually threads on Christianity.)
i know man, westerners are such dicks...
they dont even bother going "eewww" after looking at that pic. i mean did you see that? and i'm told that wasnt photoshopped in any way....

Jut a couple of odds snd ends:

1 I am a Buddhist. I am also an Athiest. So Athiest Buddhists certainly exist.

2 You missed the poll option for "They are compatable."

3 For those who are of the opinion that Buddhism is theistic I suggest you take a look at Basic Points Unifying The Theravada and the Mahayana (http://www.serve.com/cmtan/buddhism/Misc/unify.html) which explicitly states:
3. We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God.

Buddism is incompatable with my own philosophical beliefs.

I think a lot of you are confused about what Buddhism actually is. At its heart, it is not a religion although many people have since turned it into such. Siddhartha Gautama, the historic Buddha, was actually an Agnostic by most definitions. He simply was unconcerned with ideas of the afterlife or a god, but only with the here and now.

The two core teachings of the Buddha were Interdependent Arising and the importance of experience. Interdepedent Arising simply states that all things are connected, and there is no such thing as permanence. All things are a complex series of related, changing processes. He DID NOT say that suffering was necessary or inherent, but that suffering was caused by people's ignorance about the true nature of life. He never asked anyone to blindly accept a word he said, in fact contrary to most things one would consider a religion he advocated against it. He simply asked that people listen, then try out his ideas, and make the decision for themselves

I'm officially a Buddhist for the government census purposes, but was an atheist. I'm actually a Theist.

I think that being an atheist makes you more or less a freelance Zen Buddhist. You are searching for enlightenment inward, through science (there really isn't a conflict between science and Buddhism). And Buddhism is reall more of a philosophy than a religion, although many practice it as a religion. Buddha was very anti-religion, which makes that point interesting.

if you havent noticed, buddhism is a religion, not a philosophy or self help movement. the vast majority of buddhists believe in one or many gods. buddhism doesnt have an official god but buddhists DO. they just have different gods in different locations.
If you use the philosophy of Buddhism as a philosophy, then it's a philosophy.

If you use the religion of Buddhism as a religion, then it's a religion.

I'm officially a Buddhist for the government census purposes, but was an atheist. I'm actually a Theist.

How confusing.

I'm an atheist and I studied Buddhism a few years ago at university. I admire Buddhism but was not inspired to become a Buddhist. The notions of karma and reincarnation are the main obstacles, otherwise in my opinion Buddhism is based on philosophy and rational conclusions instead of blind faith. I disagree with a poster earlier who said that it's just another spiritual crutch, as Buddhism is different from the more supernatural religions. Gautama has been described as a doctor diagnosing a cure for the problem of suffering, which he blames on attachments. I guess my problem is that I'm too attached to my attachments.

Anyway, the way I rate any religion is to assume it is not true and look at how it benefits the follower, and society. I think that Buddhism is mostly positive, although it is not for everyone.

How confusing.

I'm an atheist and I studied Buddhism a few years ago at university. I admire Buddhism but was not inspired to become a Buddhist. The notions of karma and reincarnation are the main obstacles, otherwise in my opinion Buddhism is based on philosophy and rational conclusions instead of blind faith. I disagree with a poster earlier who said that it's just another spiritual crutch, as Buddhism is different from the more supernatural religions. Gautama has been described as a doctor diagnosing a cure for the problem of suffering, which he blames on attachments. I guess my problem is that I'm too attached to my attachments.

Anyway, the way I rate any religion is to assume it is not true and look at how it benefits the follower, and society. I think that Buddhism is mostly positive, although it is not for everyone.

My mother and grandmother are Buddhists (the Chinese type). My father, sister and brother are atheist - and moi is Theist. Yes I do live a confused religious environment. If you see me in NS or II, you'd think I'm a Catholic.

I think Buddhism is rather nihilistic. It's answer to suffering is to get rid of desire. If you ask me, suffering is a necessary part of life and being human. While Gautama correctly realizes that without desire, there is no suffering, his answer is basically a case of "the cure is worse than the disease".

Think about it. If you don't suffer, you really don't have happiness, either, because there is no way to distinguish happiness. Without suffering, what motivation is there to do anything great? What inspires acts of heroism or innovation if not attempts to allievate suffering?

That's like asking: Why aren't more Christians Muslims?

I mean it's a newer religion to worship the same god...

That's like asking: Why aren't more Christians Muslims?

I mean it's a newer religion to worship the same god...

Not really the same thing. The tenets of Buddhism are simlar to atheism, like the tenets of Christianity are similar to Islam. However, there are different sects of Buddhism, some that worship him like a god, which is completely contrary to the idea atheism.

And there is little to say that Islam is really that much "newer" than Christianity.

I think Buddhism is rather nihilistic. It's answer to suffering is to get rid of desire. If you ask me, suffering is a necessary part of life and being human. While Gautama correctly realizes that without desire, there is no suffering, his answer is basically a case of "the cure is worse than the disease".

Think about it. If you don't suffer, you really don't have happiness, either, because there is no way to distinguish happiness. Without suffering, what motivation is there to do anything great? What inspires acts of heroism or innovation if not attempts to allievate suffering?

I kinda agree with the cure being worse than the disease, because according to Buddhism all sources of happiness are ultimately sources of suffering because all things are impermanent. I'm not really motivated to give up things I enjoy.

I'm not so sure that you need to have suffering to feel happiness though. Presumably you can still remember suffering, I don't see why that would not be enough. Nirvana is very obscure, I don't think it's meant to be understandable to someone who hasn't achieved it.

4. I'm a firm believer in scientific thought, which would not be compatible with Buddhism

On the contrary, Buddhism is completely compatible with scientific thought. Many of the explanations for effects observed in elementary particle physics are striking paralells to Buddhist concepts.
Precisely how is all this talk of reincarnation and the world being an illusion compatible with scientific beliefs? (And please leave quantum physics out of this: I'm fed up of people using a half understood exposition of Schrodinger's cat as a proof that the buddhists are, like, dead right about that shit..)

Well, simply put, Buddhism is a religion. Atheism is the lack of religion. Regardless of the specific methodology or practices involved, Buddhism is regarded as a religion.
Definition of atheism (courtesy Merriam-Webster Online) (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=0&y=0)
When one is providing the definition for a word, external references are encouraged so that all are working off the same information.

From Wiki, the free encyclopedia...<snip>
If we are going to use Wikipedia as a reference, please review this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichiren_Buddhism) as a reference. This the school of Buddhism under which I practice and can discuss sensibly.
Personally Buddhism is one of my favorite religions (though I don't have I very high view of religions so that isn't saying much). And I think the world would be a better place if more people who felt the need to be religious became Buddhists instead of members of most monotheistic religions.

But then I'm an atheist/agnostic thing (don't like either term, depending how people define them I can be both or neither.) and I don't feel the need to be religious.

One thing I never got. Religious people always say that their religion helps make their lives better because their belief in the after life (amongst other things, but what happens after death is the most common example) helps them take control of their lives.
I would have thought that someone like me who belives that you only get one shot at life, after that you don't exist. So you better do it right. Would take more control of their life more than someone who believes that they can try again if they don't get it right, or that they go to the afterlife where everything is sweet.
Faith is a funny thing.
I would speculate that you have not encountered difficulties that you can not reason your way out of. It's very difficult for anyone to take up a belief in any religion as long as their current paradigm works. At some point, your life may require a paradigm shift.

The down side of the "one life theory" is that one has difficulty developing a sense of doing anything worthwhile. After all, no matter how much you do, or don't do, it is worth nothing after you're dead. You might as well just die now rather than postpone the inevidable. Many people get to a point in their life where they have screwed up so badly that they think that there's no hope of doing any better. As long as one is alive, one is able to improve their condition in life.

The idea of death in Buddhism is that one transitions from a state in which they have complete control over their basic nature to one where one's basic nature is fixed for a time until they are ready to manifest life again. The idea goes that the happier state that one lives in, the happier state one experiences in death and the shorter time that one's life remains in a fixed state. On the other side, the more miserable one lives, the more misery one will experience in death and the longer one's life remains in a hidden state with no chance of effecting change.

One other thought on reincarnation:
Remember what it was like precisely five years ago to the minute? What about when you were six months old? I would guess that it is not possible to remember either, yet one does not doubt their existence at such a time. Why should it be any more difficult to believe in one's existence in some form before birth?

...I think perhaps you try to improve the lives of others with Buddhism. And to the best of my knowledge, you should be trying to improve the lives of others, simply because it's a goal worth persuing. I've never heard Buddhists were supposed to offer their religion to others, without being invited to do so.
Well, now you have :) You are correct. I do try to improve the lives of others with Buddhism, both by practicing it and discussing it with others, if they are interested. Improving the lives of others is indeed a worthwhile goal and I consider Buddhism to be a means of doing so.

Call it a path if you with, I'd call it methodology. Buddhism teaches various ways of handling things. Methods.
To me, a cruicial part of my personal freedom, is the opportunity to do that on my own. If I need help, I'll ask - and not on NS General either. Thank you.
I fail to see a distinction between a path and a methodology. As far as personal freedom being linked to doing things on one's own, I would suggest you are a prisoner of your ideas. There is nothing that separates you from the rest of the world and everything that you do is dependent on your environment and those around you. "No man is an island" "Nature abhors a vacuum". All that good stuff.

Enjoy your life.

I believe that in doing what I do, I follow both the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. I just don't need no steenking monks sapphran robes to tell me what to do.
I agree with you there. My practice is entirely composed of laypersons. No professional religious figures at all.

I really do not see why I should even consider becoming a buddist just because it's the new fad and a 'trendy' thing to be. Why would I want to follow an east asian philosophy which incorporates such irrational beliefs as the afterlife and mystical enlightenment? Even if I converted now, it would only be for shallow self serving reasons such as self improvement, which is just wrong. It should be because you have faith in something.
Who said anything about trendy? And yes, mysticism of any sort is irrational. That's why they call it mysticism. This is not to say belief in mysticism makes one a lunatic. A good example would be consiousness. Everyone knows they posess consiousness, but ask them to show you were it is or why it is and explanations fall silent. I would say that consiousness is a mystical belief. Intuitively one knows it exists but it defies rational explanation.

Shallow, self serving reasons are a perfectly good reason to convert to Buddhism because of the principle of bonno soku bodai, meaning "earthly desires are enlightenment". One may start practicing for the most selfish of reasons, but the actions taken will produce benefits beyond what one initially envisioned. Actually, I know lots of people that started because they wanted to get a car or some other material thing. The strange thing of it is is after they had obtained what they wanted, they continued to practice and grow as people. What good is any religion if it can't help with fufilling wishes and dreams?

Athiest here, Buddhism certainly interests me, and if there was a buddhist temple anywhere within 150 miles I might take it up. The texts are a bit dense for the novice without some explanation.
If I knew where you were, I could help you find a place to practice. Really though, the only way to make sense out of Buddhist teachings is to practice them and observe the effects for yourself. Trying to understand them logically will get you nowhere.

i'm quite interested in buddhism, as a usually a-religious person. problem is a) i don't have any time for religion/prayer/any of that nonsense in my life as it is, and b) i like many of the ideals, philosophies, ways of living life in the real world, but i simply cannot believe in 'the power of prayer' (or any of that nonsense). if i could be a buddhist who didn't pray, i might be more inclined... it still requires faith in the religion (unlike a simple philosophy would), and that is something i just don't have.
Prayer is not irrational. All prayer is is forming an intent. When one forms an intent, one tends to view the world in terms of that intent and either consiously or unconsiously, creates the conditions necessary for their prayer to become reality. Of course, with all prayers, the form one may be expecting may not coincide with the results.

As far as faith goes, everyone has faith. If not, one could not function. It would not be possible to even walk across the room without having the faith that the ground would be underneath for the next step. Faith is not blind either. Faith comes from experience and the more experience one has with faith, the stronger it becomes.

would have chosen other....

personally i've never liked any form of manual. The fun's in trying to work these things out for yourself!

it worked for the clock on the VCR it will work in life!
Actually, that is precisely why I chose Buddhism: you work things out for yourself. Buddhist teachings are only ideas. It's up to you to make sense out of them.

I think that's enough replies to respond to for now. My apologies to anyone that I didn't get to. And thank you for your contributions to this thread.

I'm agnostic. Buddhism seems like a load of crap religion. I don't care about peace or love, I want my goddamn material things. I don't care about compassion or helping people. After Scientology, Buddhism is the worst religion.

I'm agnostic. Buddhism seems like a load of crap religion. I don't care about peace or love, I want my goddamn material things. I don't care about compassion or helping people. After Scientology, Buddhism is the worst religion.

Wow. I had once heard of people developing a "poison drum" relationship with Buddhism, but I never thought I would encounter someone that would by their own free will choose to enter into such a relationship. There's bound to be great suffering on the path you have chosen, but because you have acknowledged Buddhism by slandering it, the seeds of enlightenment have been planted within you and eventually, even you will attain Buddhahood.

Best of luck in your endeavours.