NationStates Jolt Archive

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.

I'll start the ball rolling with a few general arguments for Buddhists:

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.

When was the last time a Buddhist started a war?

...

...

...

...


Exactly. Shut up.

When was the last time a budhist was hypocritical or ratted on you for worshipping your computer
...
...
...
...
...
...
Exactly shuddap.

When was the last time a Buddhist started a war?
In Japan, a number of Buddhist monesteries could be quite militant and unscrupulous in whom they sided with to gain power.

In Japan, a number of Buddhist monesteries could be quite militant and unscrupulous in whom they sided with to gain power.

*Blinks* Dang beat me to it!

Go ahead, bash Buddha. I assure you that Buddha doesn't care. :p

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.

I'll start the ball rolling with a few general arguments for Buddhists:

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.

Life is suffering, there fore, to stop the suffering, you need to stop being reborn; this is done by reaching a state of nirvana - once that state has been reached, you are then freed from the cycle of rebirth.

Translation for Christianity; you're living in hell right now, and its up to you get to get out of it; each time you die, you come back into living in hell again, meaning, you never actually leave.

Oh, and agree with the second poster, when was the last time you saw a war fought in the name of Buddha?

Plus, ostensibly we oppose religion not only because it's annoying/evil but also because it's incorrect.

Life is suffering, there fore, to stop the suffering, you need to stop being reborn; this is done by reaching a state of nirvana - once that state has been reached, you are then freed from the cycle of rebirth.

Translation for Christianity; you're living in hell right now, and its up to you get to get out of it; each time you die, you come back into living in hell again, meaning, you never actually leave.

Oh, and agree with the second poster, when was the last time you saw a war fought in the name of Buddha?

Ok, so why do you think people get reincarnated? Also, how can you get happiness without desire?

I rather like the philosophy of Buddhism, once you take out all of the metaphysical stuff/mythology. However, the precise reason that I don't adopt any religion is because I don't need to be told what my beliefs are. I'm perfectly capable of questioning things and coming to my own conclusions. If they happen to agree with a certain religion, so be it. I'm not going to start following any religion, no matter what it teaches.

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. Come now, if you are indeed an atheist, then why the need to attack your fellow atheists? In fact, why attack religion? - As long as they go about their business, why shouldn't we?I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.They are two radically different codes of belief? Hardly. Buddhists are atheists. Same as all other atheists are.

Atheism isn't a 'code of belief'. It's the lack of one particular belief, nothing more. Or do you perhaps believe that nihilists & humanists share the same philosophy?

New question: Do aethists exist for the sheer pleasure of proving their point (is there a universal aethists point?) is better than that of religions/philosiphies/what ever else they arent praticularly fond of?
Do you contribute anything, or just bash?

Come now, if you are indeed an atheist, then why the need to attack your fellow atheists? In fact, why attack religion? - As long as they go about their business, why shouldn't we?They are two radically different codes of belief? Hardly. Buddhists are atheists. Same as all other atheists are.

Atheism isn't a 'code of belief'. It's the lack of one particular belief, nothing more. Or do you perhaps believe that nihilists & humanists share the same philosophy?

Buddhism may be a type of atheism, but only in the same way that animism is a type of atheism. If you want to be completely accurate then I suppose you could call what I'm promoting anti-supernaturalism rather than atheism, but in the case of most of this forum's declared atheists the two coincide. It's fun to attack the supernatural, and now it's Buddhism's turn.

New question: Do aethists exist for the sheer pleasure of proving their point (is there a universal aethists point?) is better than that of religions/philosiphies/what ever else they arent praticularly fond of?
Do you contribute anything, or just bash?
You can ask new questions in your own thread.

In Japan, a number of Buddhist monesteries could be quite militant and unscrupulous in whom they sided with to gain power.

Bah, I know. I'm way too tired to do this right now... I can also think of Korea, Sino-Japanese War, and Russo-Japanese War, possibly US entry into WWII, and I guess the Boxer Rebellion and, I'm pretty sure, the 1st Opium War as more wars Buddhist's started...

When was really the last time you heard of Buddhists except when they go a light themselves on fire?

New question: Do aethists exist for the sheer pleasure of proving their point (is there a universal aethists point?) is better than that of religions/philosiphies/what ever else they arent praticularly fond of?
Do you contribute anything, or just bash?

We contribute, but not in a religious context, as that wouldn't work. When the discussion turns religious we enjoy bashing. When it doesn't we're just like smarter versions of normal people.

You can ask new questions in your own thread.
Why waste the space of another thread on ns when i could post in an existing one.

Well first of all you are CLEARLY ignorant as to what Buddhism is. Not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Many of the sects of Buddhism actually are based upon relevance to a diety or to death being the end of life and they believe that reincarnation is actually just the refocusing of the earth into new things. This is to say that certain forms of Buddhism are saying nothing other than, molecules decompose and recompose to create new life. Just like many Thai buddhists are violent people. They believe that there are some necessary things that must be done because that's the way life is (take killing mosquitos for example) and they just serve as monks and donate to the monks to make up for this. As far as being happy because you want nothing, what do you not understand. It's freedom dude. If you believe that you need things to be happy then you will never reach happiness because you'll just want more. Buddhists try and explain to you that you can be happy without needing things. It's really simple. If I am happy without anything then I can be happy with everything. If I am sad with everything I will be horrified with nothing. If you're wondering where my credibility comes from, I am buddhist, I have taken 3 classes on buddhism and have written 3 term papers on the subject. Next question?

We contribute, but not in a religious context, as that wouldn't work. When the discussion turns religious we enjoy bashing. When it doesn't we're just like smarter versions of normal people.
Good to know, the smartest minds are aethist.

We contribute, but not in a religious context, as that wouldn't work. When the discussion turns religious we enjoy bashing. When it doesn't we're just like smarter versions of normal people.Oh piss.. After reading that comment, I feel like worthshipping you, yet if I do, I'll sink to the level of the common rabble.. Bugger!

We contribute, but not in a religious context, as that wouldn't work. When the discussion turns religious we enjoy bashing. When it doesn't we're just like smarter versions of normal people.
LOL... yeah, and Descartes and Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato and Hegel and Socrates and all of the other great thinkers of the western world were stupid because they believed in a god right? You're smarter in what context? You and me, someone come up with a test of multiple facets of knowledge and we'll throw down. You win and I will acknowledge that you're right, you lose and you state openly that you've been dominated by a theist. IN EVERY POST YOU HAVE ON HERE.

LOL... yeah, and Descartes and Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato and Hegel and Socrates and all of the other great thinkers of the western world were stupid because they believed in a god right? You're smarter in what context? You and me, someone come up with a test of multiple facets of knowledge and we'll throw down. You win and I will acknowledge that you're right, you lose and you state openly that you've been dominated by a theist. IN EVERY POST YOU HAVE ON HERE.I spy with my little eye... A buddhist with a strong desire! Hahaha!

Vegas-Rex, your job here is done :p

You know what happens when people dont keep a dislike of religion to themselves? Concentration camps and the Spanish Inquisition.

When was the last time a Buddhist started a war?

...

...

...

...


Exactly. Shut up.
Hey, want to try not being a complete douchebag next time? "Shut up" is hardly a constructive response, and it's the kind of thing you'll get warned and later forumbanned for if this habit continues.

Well first of all you are CLEARLY ignorant as to what Buddhism is. Not all Buddhists believe in reincarnation. Many of the sects of Buddhism actually are based upon relevance to a diety or to death being the end of life and they believe that reincarnation is actually just the refocusing of the earth into new things. This is to say that certain forms of Buddhism are saying nothing other than, molecules decompose and recompose to create new life. Just like many Thai buddhists are violent people. They believe that there are some necessary things that must be done because that's the way life is (take killing mosquitos for example) and they just serve as monks and donate to the monks to make up for this. As far as being happy because you want nothing, what do you not understand. It's freedom dude. If you believe that you need things to be happy then you will never reach happiness because you'll just want more. Buddhists try and explain to you that you can be happy without needing things. It's really simple. If I am happy without anything then I can be happy with everything. If I am sad with everything I will be horrified with nothing. If you're wondering where my credibility comes from, I am buddhist, I have taken 3 classes on buddhism and have written 3 term papers on the subject. Next question?

Yes, with some reincarnation isn't supernatural. Just as for some Christians various miracles probably didn't happen. We're bashing the foolish people here, not the rational ones. That would just be counterproductive.

The issue is how one can be happy with everything if happiness is simply the absence of sadness or vice-versa. Happiness needs differentiation in order to be happiness. Once you become accustomed to happiness it stops having value. It's simple supply and demand. A desireless, needless nirvana would mean that there would be no joy or pain, and therefore no purpose. Why try to make oneself redundant?

I think the main reason that we dont bash Buddhism, is because in most cases Buddhists are much more like "us" freethinkers than say, those who adhere to an Abrahamic relgion.
Technically, Buddhism isn't even a religion. It is a belief system, one that has very few dogmatic belief requirements.
I would say, except for going to thier temple, the average Buddhist doesn't have a much different view of how one should act then your average athiest/agnostic. Siddartha Guatama himself was an agnostic, and laughed at his follower's attempt to deify him while he died.
The other thing is Buddhists are open to change in their system, if science proves them wrong. Science has yet to conclusively prove transmigration of souls is impossible, because that is outside of the realm of science; you can't even prove or disprove the existence of a soul.
I think this quote by the Dalai Lama:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. "
Can you imagine Pat Robertson, or even a "moderate" Christian Theologian saying that?
Of course not, and that shows why we don't bash Buddhists that much; they don't have INSANE beliefs, they don't try to force said beliefs on others, and they will change their beliefs if neccesssary.

I'm an Atheist, and I have nothing but a deep respect and admiration for Buddhism. Compared to the other world religions, I think Buddhism is more rational and has more depth and substance. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion, is practiced by Christian, Jew, Atheist, etc. alike.

Also, keep in mind there are different types of Buddhism, some of which have added the local pagan superstitions and such. But The actual unadulterated teachings of Buddha themselves are good stuff if you actually research it.

LOL... yeah, and Descartes and Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato and Hegel and Socrates and all of the other great thinkers of the western world were stupid because they believed in a god right? You're smarter in what context? You and me, someone come up with a test of multiple facets of knowledge and we'll throw down. You win and I will acknowledge that you're right, you lose and you state openly that you've been dominated by a theist. IN EVERY POST YOU HAVE ON HERE.

You really can't take sarcasm, can't you?

Seriously, though, you happen to have a functioning smartness test? You should sell it! You'd make millions, especially if you fudged results when testing celebrities or something.

I think the main reason that we dont bash Buddhism, is because in most cases Buddhists are much more like "us" freethinkers than say, those who adhere to an Abrahamic relgion.
Technically, Buddhism isn't even a religion. It is a belief system, one that has very few dogmatic belief requirements.
I would say, except for going to thier temple, the average Buddhist doesn't have a much different view of how one should act then your average athiest/agnostic. Siddartha Guatama himself was an agnostic, and laughed at his follower's attempt to deify him while he died.
The other thing is Buddhists are open to change in their system, if science proves them wrong. Science has yet to conclusively prove transmigration of souls is impossible, because that is outside of the realm of science; you can't even prove or disprove the existence of a soul.
I think this quote by the Dalai Lama:
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. "
Can you imagine Pat Robertson, or even a "moderate" Christian Theologian saying that?
Of course not, and that shows why we don't bash Buddhists that much; they don't have INSANE beliefs, they don't try to force said beliefs on others, and they will change their beliefs if neccesssary.

While Buddhism has traditionally been nicer in practice, ignoring it for that reason seems to be tantamount to accepting bribery.

Most Christians also claim that their beliefs are outside of the realm of science, which generally annoys me. Buddhism gets away with it more often, but they both try to slip away from scrutiny. That doesn't mean they're inscrutable.

LOL... yeah, and Descartes and Aquinas and Aristotle and Plato and Hegel and Socrates and all of the other great thinkers of the western world were stupid because they believed in a god right? You're smarter in what context? You and me, someone come up with a test of multiple facets of knowledge and we'll throw down. You win and I will acknowledge that you're right, you lose and you state openly that you've been dominated by a theist. IN EVERY POST YOU HAVE ON HERE.
Except that if you really were such an expert on Buddhism, you'd already know that Buddha isn't exactly a God, per se, making the title "theist" somewhat... ahh... erroneous.

Good to know, the smartest minds are aethist.I don't know how it looks in the rest of the world, but in America, there is actually a connection between a high IQ & absense of religion. The connection is probably education, but that's just me guessing.
In any case, someone here posted a US study saying as much a while back.

Except that if you really were such an expert on Buddhism, you'd already know that Buddha isn't exactly a God, per se, making the title "theist" somewhat... ahh... erroneous.
That depends entirely on the Buddhist you're asking. Besides, a goodly number of them believe in all sorts of Gods from other (usually regional) religions.

Except that if you really were such an expert on Buddhism, you'd already know that Buddha isn't exactly a God, per se, making the title "theist" somewhat... ahh... erroneous.

Be fair, he could be one of the odder Mahayanas for whom the Boddhisatvas have various crazy magical powers and can manifest throughout spacetime. That sounds like gods.

Descartes, Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Hegel, and Socrates? For one, Plato and Socrates don't deserve seperate mentions; all of Socrates' supposed ideas were being written down by Plato, so it's all Platonism to me. Two, you had "and" between each of these names, which is bad English and also ugly. Three, the idea of any kind of real "test of knowledge" is retarded. Four, all the "thinkers" you mention are not necessarily smart because they've been dead a long time and/or thought of something before everyone else. You're arguing from dogma, which is precisely what an atheist would accuse you of.

Someone else has called atheists Nazis while I was writing this. I think we can safely say this thread has gone to the Hell I don't believe in.

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.

I'll start the ball rolling with a few general arguments for Buddhists:

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.

I don't know of too many buddhists who would be weak minded enough to need your approval or dissaproval to see whats logical or illogical. Security is probably more a need of an over inflated ego. To paraphrase an old buddhist proverb, the truth does not exist until its observed, which scientifically, fits well with quantum theory. Now, to attack athiesm, which comes to conclusions without all the answers, I think you limit the span of your intellect when you are not open to all possibilities, and aversion is a stratum. To Answer a question with a question, and there is a point to this, what do you think of dark matter and the cyclical possibilties of the universe? I am not a practicing buddhist, but when I was, I found out more about myself in about three years then most people twice my age seem to know of themselves. Regardless of your feelings on reincarnation, and or nirvana, the insight that the philosophy of taoist born religious practice promotes in an individual is amazing.

Be fair, he could be one of the odder Mahayanas for whom the Boddhisatvas have various crazy magical powers and can manifest throughout spacetime. That sounds like gods.
You know, for the longest time I thought "Boddhisatva" was just a word that Steely Dan made up.

Although in fairness he hasn't specified his denomination, so I was operating under the assumption that he was an orthodox Buddhist.

I don't know of too many buddhists who would be weak minded enough to need your approval or dissaproval to see whats logical or illogical. Security is probably more a need of an over inflated ego. To paraphrase an old buddhist proverb, the truth does not exist until its observed, which scientifically, fits well with quantum theory. Now, to attack athiesm, which comes to conclusions without all the answers, I think you limit the span of your intellect when you are not open to all possibilities, and aversion is a stratum. To Answer a question with a question, and there is a point to this, what do you think of dark matter and the cyclical possibilties of the universe? I am not a practicing buddhist, but when I was, I found out more about myself in about three years then most people twice my age seem to know of themselves. Regardless of your feelings on reincarnation, and or nirvana, the insight that the philosophy of taoist born religious practice promotes in an individual is amazing.

I don't even know what to respond to here, you can't seem to stop switching topics. Security is only needed by the insecure, so we don't care about you. We fit with quantum theory. Atheism comes to conclusions (not necessarily true). To not accept religion you must be averse to it. Dark matter and cyclical possibilities of the universe defy atheism. That's interesting, because I thought they only defied accepted science.

You say there's a point, but I can't see it.

I don't know of too many buddhists who would be weak minded enough to need your approval or dissaproval to see whats logical or illogical. Security is probably more a need of an over inflated ego. To paraphrase an old buddhist proverb, the truth does not exist until its observed, which scientifically, fits well with quantum theory. Now, to attack athiesm, which comes to conclusions without all the answers, I think you limit the span of your intellect when you are not open to all possibilities, and aversion is a stratum. To Answer a question with a question, and there is a point to this, what do you think of dark matter and the cyclical possibilties of the universe? I am not a practicing buddhist, but when I was, I found out more about myself in about three years then most people twice my age seem to know of themselves. Regardless of your feelings on reincarnation, and or nirvana, the insight that the philosophy of taoist born religious practice promotes in an individual is amazing.

Varieuse reponses:

Security from irritation. Christians don't need our approval, either, but I bet they wish we'd shut up.

Buddhism ignores other possibilities as well. That's basically what an ism is, you may acknowledge that other points of view could eventually be proven right but you're still confident in your own. You then become more so once you realize how fun it is to argue it.

Dark matter...I've actually heard an interesting article about how a slight alteration to the theory eliminates it. And of course the universe is cyclical, what else would it be?

If I had started a thread criticizing Taoism I'd let you know, but Taoists aren't nearly as presumptuous, and I don't know nearly as much about them (stupid comparative religions teacher for not teaching about Taoism...grr...). In any case, Buddhism is not a Taoism based religion.

Now, to attack athiesm, which comes to conclusions without all the answers, I think you limit the span of your intellect when you are not open to all possibilities, and aversion is a stratum.

To Answer a question with a question...Now to do the same: do you believe in The Star Goat, The Pink Invisible Unicorn, FSMism, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the plethora of other weird supernatural ideas people have had throughout history, than can't possibly be disproved?

If not, do you honestly hold that believing one fairytale, yet discarding the rest as nonsense, means you keep a 'more' open mind than someone who doesn't believe any fairytales?

Now to do the same: do you believe in The Star Goat, The Pink Invisible Unicorn, FSMism, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the plethora of other weird supernatural ideas people have had throughout history, than can't possibly be disproved?

If not, do you honestly hold that believing one fairytale, yet discarding the rest as nonsense, means you keep a 'more' open mind than someone who doesn't believe any fairytales?

uh, Buddha was a historical person, not a God. He never claimed to be one. He is merely revered as a teacher. There are in fact atheists who practice Buddhism (the actual original philosophy, not the sectarian superstitions).

Research is our friend.

Now to do the same: do you believe in The Star Goat, The Pink Invisible Unicorn, FSMism, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the plethora of other weird supernatural ideas people have had throughout history, than can't possibly be disproved?

If not, do you honestly hold that believing one fairytale, yet discarding the rest as nonsense, means you keep a 'more' open mind than someone who doesn't believe any fairytales?
You asked for it.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

uh, Buddha was a historical person, not a God. He never claimed to be one. He is merely revered as a teacher. There are in fact atheists who practice Buddhism (the actual original philosophy, not the sectarian superstitions).

Research is our friend.

Buddha was a historical person. So was Jesus. That has nothing to do with whether reincarnated souls/angels are real. Buddhist atheists can certainly exist, just as atheists can technically believe in the tooth fairy. It's just not stereotypically thought of as an atheist point of view.

Ok im an agnostic so i guess i dont count but... why are you bashing buddhists? Buddhists aren't all-knowing anoying motherf***s trying to convert you by being as unpleasent as possible so why r u trying to bash them, as far as im concerned its THEIR life until they try to make it mine and they dont harass me.

Buddha was a historical person. So was Jesus. That has nothing to do with whether reincarnated souls/angels are real. Buddhist atheists can certainly exist, just as atheists can technically believe in the tooth fairy. It's just not stereotypically thought of as an atheist point of view.

Actually, no Jesus was NOT a historical person. The mythos was frankensteined out of earlier pagan mythology. Odin, who was nailed to a tree. Osiris, who died for 3 days and came back. Mithras, born of a virgin mother. The list goes on.

And again, Buddhist practice and teaching can't be equated to the toothy fairy, given that it is proven and applicable. And no, that doesn't include the magic and superstition shit.

Again, research is our friend. You've got the internet and search engines at your fingertips.

Bah, I know. I'm way too tired to do this right now... I can also think of Korea, Sino-Japanese War, and Russo-Japanese War, possibly US entry into WWII, and I guess the Boxer Rebellion and, I'm pretty sure, the 1st Opium War as more wars Buddhist's started...

When was really the last time you heard of Buddhists except when they go a light themselves on fire?

Plus, there's the fact that when the Mongols conquered China, Genghis Khan (or was it his son?) converted to Buddhism. But for the argument of the Japanese, they're mostly Shinto, which is a completely different belief than Buddhism. Though, if you were implying that Bushido mixed Confucian, Buddhist and Shinto beliefs, then that could sorta be accepted.

Keep in mind, you are dealing with aethists. They all keep a big file cabinet full of little scraps of paper, that read things they do not like. They have a drawer devoted to Christianity. Well when they draw one of their scraps they decide to post about their dislike of the "idea"(which is a rather vague category but o well).

Ok im an agnostic so i guess i dont count but... why are you bashing buddhists? Buddhists aren't all-knowing anoying motherf***s trying to convert you by being as unpleasent as possible so why r u trying to bash them, as far as im concerned its THEIR life until they try to make it mine and they dont harass me.
Want some advice? Tough cookies, you're getting it anyway.

This isn't an AOL chatroom, and typing an extra two letters [are "are" and "you" really that goddamn hard to type?!] or keeping your pinkie on the 'shift' key where appropriate will do wonders for the credibility of your argument. Observe:

"OK, I'm an agnostic so I guess I don't count but... why are you bashing Buddhists? Buddhists aren't all-knowing anoying motherfuckers trying to convert you by being as unpleasent as possible so why are you trying to bash them? As far as im concerned its THEIR life until they try to make it mine, and they don't harass me."

Seriously, try putting a little effort into it next time. You'll find you will get more constructive responses if you don't type like you have Down's Syndrome.

Ok im an agnostic so i guess i dont count but... why are you bashing buddhists? Buddhists aren't all-knowing anoying motherf***s trying to convert you by being as unpleasent as possible so why r u trying to bash them, as far as im concerned its THEIR life until they try to make it mine and they dont harass me.

Buddhists don't attack in the same way that some Christians do, but they certainly still attack. Usually it takes the form of the general smug assurance that whatever they post will be completely and utterly agreed with, even without any form of substantiation. It's annoying, and it's boring to focus only on bashing Christians. If I can annoy one Buddhist enough to stop assuming they're right, I will have done my duty.

Buddhism and Atheism (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220595.htm)

More about Buddhism and Atheism (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhism_atheism.html)

Even more about Buddhism and Atheism (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8918.htm)

Now to do the same: do you believe in The Star Goat, The Pink Invisible Unicorn, FSMism, Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and the plethora of other weird supernatural ideas people have had throughout history, than can't possibly be disproved?

If not, do you honestly hold that believing one fairytale, yet discarding the rest as nonsense, means you keep a 'more' open mind than someone who doesn't believe any fairytales?

As far as athiests go, I don't really have a problem with them, most of my best friends are athiest, that remark was made, along with the string of questions, as a flow of advocacy. The debate brought a flow of stark ideas to my head. Buddhism, definately comes from taoist roots, which I will have to do some refined research to give to sources. If you have an artical on new scientific research on dark matter I would love to read it. My point being, about the cyclical universe, from a demystified scientific stand point, is similar to the feelings behind the tennates of the scientifically ignorant tennates of ancient toasit metaphysics which most eastern religion sprung from. For the record, I think the remark about christians not needing security and acceptance either is wrong, and part of a deep contrast between the two philosophies, one is about achieving acceptance, and another is about achieving a sort of idividual nihilism, a cleansing from such superfical attachments of the world.

Actually, no Jesus was NOT a historical person. The mythos was frankensteined out of earlier pagan mythology. Odin, who was nailed to a tree. Osiris, who died for 3 days and came back. Mithras, born of a virgin mother. The list goes on.

And again, Buddhist practice and teaching can't be equated to the toothy fairy, given that it is proven and applicable. And no, that doesn't include the magic and superstition shit.

Again, research is our friend. You've got the internet and search engines at your fingertips.

So reincarnation is proven and applicable? Wow, I thought they hadn't even mastered human cloning yet.

So karma operates by some sort of scientific force? Really? Not something I've learned in Physics class.

You asked for it.Technically, I simply asked it, I didn't ask for it :p
But I would've used that quote if I'd remembered about it.Buddha was a historical person. So was Jesus. That has nothing to do with whether reincarnated souls/angels are real. Buddhist atheists can certainly exist, just as atheists can technically believe in the tooth fairy. It's just not stereotypically thought of as an atheist point of view.Yes, Buddha was a historical person, and he didn't in any way claim to be a God. Just a perfectly ordinary human who'd seen the smoke.. Or something.

Yet plenty of Buddhists do consider the guy a God, and actively worthship the fat man in the sky. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Thailand. It's a nice place, you won't regret it.

I never claimed Buddha was a God. I never would. I said that some Buddhists deify the guy. No need to read between the lines, I said exactly what I meant to say; that the Buddhist poster (who claimed to be a theist) might be worthshipping Buddha as a God.

EDIT: Besides, Buddhists usually believe in all sorts of magical hokus-pokus. That was what I was referring to in the post you quoted.

Buddhists don't attack in the same way that some Christians do, but they certainly still attack. Usually it takes the form of the general smug assurance that whatever they post will be completely and utterly agreed with, even without any form of substantiation. It's annoying, and it's boring to focus only on bashing Christians. If I can annoy one Buddhist enough to stop assuming they're right, I will have done my duty.
Do you guys ever concede you are wrong?

So reincarnation is proven and applicable? Wow, I thought they hadn't even mastered human cloning yet.

So karma operates by some sort of scientific force? Really? Not something I've learned in Physics class.

So, what you're saying is you don't know a damn thing about the Buddhist teachings? Reincarnation and karma are not parts of the base philosophy, as I've already stated. Again, research something before you critique it so you don't look like a fool. Go back and read the links.

...

Buddhism does not come from Taoism. Buddhism is an offshoot of the older Hindu meditative tradition. Look up Jainism. Lots of similarities with Buddhism and predates Taoism. Taoism certainly influenced Buddhism once it made its way into China, but it had no influence on Shakyamuni himself or early Indian Buddhism.

Edit: "The fat guy in the sky" is the Boddhisatva Maitreya (Amida), NOT the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni). Plus boddhisatvas are a primarily Mahayana thing, whereas Thailand is Theravadan.

Technically, I simply asked it, I didn't ask for it :p
But I would've used that quote if I'd remembered about it.Yes, Buddha was a historical person, and he didn't in any way claim to be a God. Just a perfectly ordinary human who'd seen the smoke.. Or something.

Yet plenty of Buddhists do consider the guy a God, and actively worthship the fat man in the sky. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Thailand. It's a nice place, you won't regret it.

I never claimed Buddha was a God. I never would. I said that some Buddhists deify the guy. No need to read between the lines, I said exactly what I meant to say; that the Buddhist poster (who claimed to be a theist) might be worthshipping Buddha as a God.

EDIT: Besides, Buddhists usually believe in all sorts of magical hokus-pokus. That was what I was referring to in the post you quoted.

Well, with all religions and philosophies, Buddhism has it's sects and factions, some more superstitious and theistic than the next.

However, the basic teachings (NOT THE DAMN MAGIC/DIVINITY SHIT) are pretty rational. Meditation has been proven by science to be psychologically benefitial. Again, I'm an atheist and I find a lot to like about it, atleast the core idea of it anyway.

http://buddhism.about.com/

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/buddha/

Want some advice? Tough cookies, you're getting it anyway.

This isn't an AOL chatroom, and typing an extra two letters [are "are" and "you" really that goddamn hard to type?!] or keeping your pinkie on the 'shift' key where appropriate will do wonders for the credibility of your argument. Observe:

"OK, I'm an agnostic so I guess I don't count but... why are you bashing Buddhists? Buddhists aren't all-knowing anoying motherfuckers trying to convert you by being as unpleasent as possible so why are you trying to bash them? As far as im concerned its THEIR life until they try to make it mine, and they don't harass me."

Seriously, try putting a little effort into it next time. You'll find you will get more constructive responses if you don't type like you have Down's Syndrome.

Ok now I will just argue that atheists are the smartest, although they are the biggest smart-ASSES though, geese so what if I'm fucking lazy? You missed the whole gad damned point (I love using that, it pisses christians off)! I'm not trying to write a newspaper article here now can you answer my questions?

When was the last time a Buddhist started a war?

...

...

...

...


Exactly. Shut up.


:rolleyes:

Well, with all religions and philosophies, Buddhism has it's sects and factions, some more superstitious and theistic than the next.

However, the basic teachings (NOT THE DAMN MAGIC/DIVINITY SHIT) are pretty rational. Meditation has been proven by science to be psychologically benefitial. Again, I'm an atheist and I find a lot to like about it, atleast the core idea of it anyway.

http://buddhism.about.com/

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/buddha/Mate.. I'm not arguing against the reasonable types. Try reading the first post I made in this thread (on p.1) if you want to find out where I stand on this.

Vegas-Rex managed to convince me (through sheer sillyness) that bashing some random religion (not the philosophy, the'd be pointless) is great fun. And it was, right until you started presenting reasonable arguments. Now I'm bored again. Bastard :(

Ok now I will just argue that atheists are the smartest, although they are the biggest smart-ASSES though, geese so what if I'm fucking lazy? You missed the whole gad damned point (I love using that, it pisses christians off)! I'm not trying to write a newspaper article here now can you answer my questions?
Four things:

First, I don't bash Buddhists. I don't particularly care for the teachings of Buddhism but I have bigger fish to fry and they don't bother me, as a general rule.

Second, I wasn't answering your post, I was pointing out that it could have been phrased a bit more cogently.

Thirdly, I'm not a Christian, as you may have assumed.

And finally, I'm lazy too: I once taped BBs to my pens and pencils in High School and bought an extendable magnet pointer so I didn't have to bend over to pick them up. That doesn't mean I write like I've been stuck in an AOL lobby for the last decade.

Ok, so why do you think people get reincarnated? Also, how can you get happiness without desire?

Everything in life is done to persue that desire; once we have that desire, we're no longer happy, so we desire something else - its a continuous cycle of want, want, want, and when we get what we want, we're never truely satisfied - if we find inner peace and satisfied with what we have and cease persuing material goals, we no longer simply exist to satisfy that desire, we break that cycle desire driven existance.

As for re-incarnation; I think you need to look for a better word as Buddhism and its texts are intepreted different, according to each culture that adopted it, things have been added onto it, meanings have been changed to fit cultural interpretations etc.

If you look on Buddha Net, you'll find the 4 Noble Truths PDF file which outlines the whole philosophy in alot better detail than what I can.

...

Buddhism does not come from Taoism. Buddhism is an offshoot of the older Hindu meditative tradition. Look up Jainism. Lots of similarities with Buddhism and predates Taoism. Taoism certainly influenced Buddhism once it made its way into China, but it had no influence on Shakyamuni himself or early Indian Buddhism.

Edit: "The fat guy in the sky" is the Boddhisatva Maitreya (Amida), NOT the historical Buddha (Shakyamuni). Plus boddhisatvas are a primarily Mahayana thing, whereas Thailand is Theravadan.

Im sorry, I wasn't aware the hindu's wrote the I-ching, wait they didn't, the taoists did. Buddhism is indeed an offsring of hinduism directly, but it rips off a ridiculous amount of taoist philosophy. Ying and Yang is a major tennate of buddhism for example, and it is derived from the I-ching, and karma for example, comes from hinduism...its a matter of symantics I believe, you are arguing about buddha, and I am arguing about buddhism...not that it matters much.

Buddhists probably avoid much of the bashing because they aren't trying to insert ID into the science curriculum. Also, aren't some buddhists atheists already anyway?

Chairman Mao hated them though, if that is any consolation. And the Dalai Lama has a few homophobic tendencies.

Three things:

First, I don't bash Buddhists. I don't particularly care for the teachings of Buddhism but I have bigger fish to fry and they don't bother me, as a general rule.

Second, I wasn't answering your post, I was pointing out that it could have been phrased a bit more cogently.

Thirdly, I'm not a Christian, as you seem to have assumed.

I never thought you were a christian I just had to put that in to be sure you wouldn't misunderstand why I love to say "god damn" and think I'm a never-to-be-sufficiently-damned christian. Also finally thanks for the critique on how I do things but I type a lot slower than I think and I don't want to forget anything.

So, what you're saying is you don't know a damn thing about the Buddhist teachings? Reincarnation and karma are not parts of the base philosophy, as I've already stated. Again, research something before you critique it so you don't look like a fool. Go back and read the links.

Look, nirvana, karma, and reincarnation are pretty central tenets of Buddhism, and as far as I've seen your links do nothing to disprove that. Buddhism is an attempt to escape the cycle of reincarnation. It may have a philosophy to back that up, but it's goal is elevation of the soul to an exalted state. You can have Buddhism without reincarnation just as you can have Christianity without heaven (it's called Deism), but what's the point in bashing a position whose whole purpose is to avoid bashability? Seems counterproductive.

Im sorry, I wasn't aware the hindu's wrote the I-ching, wait they didn't, the taoists did. Buddhism is indeed an offsring of hinduism directly, but it rips off a ridiculous amount of taoist philosophy. Ying and Yang is a major tennate of buddhism for example, and it is derived from the I-ching, and karma for example, comes from hinduism...its a matter of symantics I believe, you are arguing about buddha, and I am arguing about buddhism...not that it matters much.

Yin and Yang are Zen Buddhist concepts. If I wanted to debate a subset I'd have picked the one with Boddhisattvas.

Hey, want to try not being a complete douchebag next time? "Shut up" is hardly a constructive response, and it's the kind of thing you'll get warned and later forumbanned for if this habit continues.

Sorry, I'm not really in the best state of mind right now.

Everything in life is done to persue that desire; once we have that desire, we're no longer happy, so we desire something else - its a continuous cycle of want, want, want, and when we get what we want, we're never truely satisfied - if we find inner peace and satisfied with what we have and cease persuing material goals, we no longer simply exist to satisfy that desire, we break that cycle desire driven existance.

As for re-incarnation; I think you need to look for a better word as Buddhism and its texts are intepreted different, according to each culture that adopted it, things have been added onto it, meanings have been changed to fit cultural interpretations etc.

If you look on Buddha Net, you'll find the 4 Noble Truths PDF file which outlines the whole philosophy in alot better detail than what I can.

And back to the actual debate...

So if happiness disappears when one has achieved desire, how is minimizing desire the solution? Wouldn't that just make you effectively have achieved your every desire, thus eliminating happiness? Happiness exists in the chase, not in the reward.

The Yijing is not considered a Buddhist scripture. Yin and yang are not Buddhist concepts. What you seem to be confused on is that many Asian religions allow for syncretism, meaning you can combine, say, practices from Buddhism and Taoism or Buddhism and Shinto. Whenever a religion or philosophy enters an entirely different cultural area, like Buddhism in China, you are going to have influences from the prevaling local beliefs. That's not "ripping off." It is ridiculous to believe that Buddhism "came from" Taoism, especially since Buddhism is also prevalent in non-Sinitic cultural areas.

Also, aren't some buddhists atheists already anyway?

Yes (me, for one - I don't believe in reincarnation, either). Some Buddhists are even Christian. It's too diverse a religion to really hate with the same intensity as the Abrahamic ones. The Abrahamic faiths claim total and exclusive authority over all of human existence, at least in their fundamentalist-political forms, and while some Buddhists are superstitious or weird or socially retrograde, those aren't integral aspects of the religion the way hellfire and mythological literalism are for Christianity and Islam.

Buddha is not actually the fat man you see as Buddha. And just in case you didn't know, Buddha was born a prince, he gave up his wealth and family to become who he was. I don't think Jesus ever gave up a kingdom. He gave his life, but we all die eventually. Also, there are THREE main schools of Buddhism, unlike Christianity which has how many? Fifty plus?

When we think of the fat guy in the sky they are deceived. That is an american statue. A true buddhist figurine is not fat. We must pay attention to the story that the first buddha was known for having survived on six grains of rice per day when meditating. It was said you could see his spine through his stomach.

As I recall that was mostly when he was an ascetic, but you're right, fat guy with a big prayer wheel is one of the more amusing characterizations used to get the ball rolling in an unexpected direction.

Buddha is not actually the fat man you see as Buddha. And just in case you didn't know, Buddha was born a prince, he gave up his wealth and family to become who he was. I don't think Jesus ever gave up a kingdom. He gave his life, but we all die eventually. Also, there are THREE main schools of Buddhism, unlike Christianity which has how many? Fifty plus?

Christianity has three main ones as well. Both just have a lot of random subschools.

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.

I'll start the ball rolling with a few general arguments for Buddhists:

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.

What is the sound of one mouse ignoring? -click-

What is the sound of one mouse ignoring? -click-
Obviously.

What's the point of even discussing/debating this if people just stick to a opinion with an almost dogmatic devotion and dismiss rebuttals without given them a proper objective analysis? Sounds a little too... Christianish.

Buddhists don't attack in the same way that some Christians do, but they certainly still attack. Usually it takes the form of the general smug assurance that whatever they post will be completely and utterly agreed with, even without any form of substantiation. It's annoying, and it's boring to focus only on bashing Christians. If I can annoy one Buddhist enough to stop assuming they're right, I will have done my duty.

That's just how Buddhism works though. Buddhist teachings are just put out there and you are free to either accept them or reject them. They don't substantiate themselves because either one wants to believe them or doesn't. That is the essence of belief: the assumption that you are right.

That's just how Buddhism works though. Buddhist teachings are just put out there and you are free to either accept them or reject them. They don't substantiate themselves because either one wants to believe them or doesn't. That is the essence of belief: the assumption that you are right.

And thus, the basis of debate.

What's the point of even discussing/debating this if people just stick to a opinion with an almost dogmatic devotion and dismiss rebuttals without given them a proper objective analysis? Sounds a little too... Christianish.

I'm sorry, I'll check your links again, but I still don't remember seeing the argument made that reincarnation/karma/dharma/nirvana aren't the basis of Buddhism. Some avoid them, but it's not too common in my experience.

Edit: Actually, several of your links seem to advocate that said concepts are part of Buddhism, putting it in a decidedly supernaturalist stance.

I not only believe, but I know, that buddhism came directly from hinduism...and was influenced by taoism when it spread to china. I understand what your talking about, the brand of buddhism I was directly influenced by when I was recovering from christianity was shinto-buddhism when I was living in japan...I practiced zen buddhism when I considered myself a buddhist, but I have studdied other forms of buddhism...of course buddhism is affected locally by eastern mythology and various forms of philosophy. I will rebuke myself for talking more personally and less universally because I am indeed tired.

Yes (me, for one - I don't believe in reincarnation, either). Some Buddhists are even Christian. It's too diverse a religion to really hate with the same intensity as the Abrahamic ones. The Abrahamic faiths claim total and exclusive authority over all of human existence, at least in their fundamentalist-political forms, and while some Buddhists are superstitious or weird or socially retrograde, those aren't integral aspects of the religion the way hellfire and mythological literalism are for Christianity and Islam.

So I gather then your focus as a buddhist is primarily ethical, rather than supernatural?

Ethical and psychological, yes.

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

I'm a Buddhist.

My answers for the first question:

First, it's not reincarnation but "rebirth" (sanskrit - punarbhava). Reincarnation emplies a fixed entity. Buddhism does not. In fact the teaching, as I understand it, is that nothing perminant survives death and everything is imperminant. There is no "soul" to be reincarnated. Howevew, life comes out of it. A good analogy would be lighting a candle from another candle. The first candle "dies". The second candle is the flame "reborn".

My personal understanding of rebirth is that your components will eventually be reincoroprated in another being (organism).

The difference may seem to be hairsplitting, and it may not be orthodox or completely correct, but, for now, it's the best I can do. :)

Additionaly, there are Buddhist who believe the concept of rebirth should be scrapped. See this for an discusion: http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_06.html

A second way of looking at it is that you are "reborn" every instant. The things that make you you are in constant flux. As every instant of time passes, you are a different entity. For example, as you read this, how many chemical reactions are taking place in your body? Each one is a change, or rebirth.

I hope this made some sense.

As to the second question, my understanding of Nibbāna is that it's not so much an end of rebirth as explained above, but an endless state of peace and understanding of the way things are.

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.

:D

Lacadaemon, I think you hit it on the head for me as well. At least sort of, anyway.

I see Buddhism as a system of understanding the world through obserevation. It has picked up a lot of superstition along the way, and that needs to be discarded. And some doctrine needs to be re-evaluated and reinterpreted/explained (at best) or even discarded. But I think it explains the human condition and it's causes, and offers solutions, in a way that can be reconciled with modern science.

New question: Do aethists exist for the sheer pleasure of proving their point (is there a universal aethists point?) is better than that of religions/philosiphies/what ever else they arent praticularly fond of?
Do you contribute anything, or just bash?

I contribute greatly. A religion makes up up something and trys to take take action based on that something of which the religion just made up. This action would effect a lot of people. As an atheist I point out that the original justification was simply made up in order to attempt correct an errant attempt at action and or an errant action. As an atheist I feel it incombant on me to tell people what is and what isn't make believe. If you think it is such a small task why don't you try it?

To come back in a little late. To defend myself, yes I am buddhist, I also believe in a god. Hence the theist statement, so for those of us who like to speak before knowing the entire idea, maybe you should ask questions before trying to point out flaws. As far as the me being desireless goes, I would quote Lao Tzu in saying, "if you see a buddha kill him." This is to say that if you find a perfectly enlightened person, they have nothing to live for and the entire point is to keep trying to become better. If I was a perfect buddhist, I wouldn't need to practice buddhism. I however am a tool and a human being. You'll have to pardon me if I was rash earlier, I just have to deal with alot of very stupid people when talking about buddhism so I have grown accustom to becoming defensive about it. Which is a bit odd I suppose. Anyway. The idea of being happy with nothing is that, you shouldn't need things to be happy. I don't think most people would disagree with that. The dalai lama does the best by it when he says that you should be happy with life and be happy because you should be happy. He and most buddhists (I think) believe that people have reason to be happy and little reason to be sad. The idea in buddhism is that having things is what makes you sad. If you are free of material wants you are free to enjoy life for every day and every second. If you are so caught up in wanting that you cannot take time to love what you already have there is no purpose. The end basis for this is that if you can learn to be happy with nothing, you can be happy with anything. Get it?

To come back in a little late. To defend myself, yes I am buddhist, I also believe in a god. Hence the theist statement, so for those of us who like to speak before knowing the entire idea, maybe you should ask questions before trying to point out flaws...
And maybe you ought to read the rest of my posts. You had not, at that point, clarified your opinions as to the existence of God, you had merely stated that you were a "Buddhist." Orthodox Buddhists do not regard Buddha as a God; in the context of the available information at the time my statement was perfectly appropriate.

Right, it wasn't wrong, but it was presumptuous and defaming. To think that you can make a character statement about someone when you admittedly have incomplete knowledge is pretty petty. I don't fault you, I'd be a liar if I said I had never done it. I was just trying to point out that I am not quite so stupid as you tried to make me appear in your haste.

Reincarnation? Karma? Buddha, I'm so tied of expalining these things. And let's face it-- Eastern philosphy can't be "expalined". Stop being so western.

Ask Fiddles :D , I have an opinion as a Buddhist. I also have an opinion as an atheist. (Note: Not agnostic).
Take the time to visit monestaries, and you might get to peek behind the curtain. Buddhists are the only religion I'm aware of that admit the presence of one.

Right, it wasn't wrong, but it was presumptuous and defaming. To think that you can make a character statement about someone when you admittedly have incomplete knowledge is pretty petty. I don't fault you, I'd be a liar if I said I had never done it. I was just trying to point out that I am not quite so stupid as you tried to make me appear in your haste.
You weren't being exactly civil with your opposition either. That tends to lead to replies such as mine.

Explain what you mean by that? I go to temple whenever I am needing a place to relax and think and I agree that it's a fantastic way to show the beauty of buddhism, but how do you mean you get a look behind the curtain?

Explain what you mean by that? I go to temple whenever I am needing a place to relax and think and I agree that it's a fantastic way to show the beauty of buddhism, but how do you mean you get a look behind the curtain?
IMHO, Buddhism has its fair share of retards. That's what the surface is for.
We all should have our needs met. Esotericism isn't for everyone.
Neither's calculus, but who cares? Any douchewad that opposes Buddhism the same way they oppose theistic (with a God) religions needs to check their history. It's like, "why?"
Why? Name an instance of "Buddhist oppression" you've experienced.
I could name moe existentialist oppression, but it would be equally rediculous.

Is it just me, but everytime I see something about Buddhism (or a similar religion). I see a little message flashing in my head.

(Watch out! It's Buddhism, another death religion that complains about how horrible life is and preaches how life will be so much better when your dead.)

To me, I don't see such a clear connection between Buddhism and Atheistism. Other then Buddhism not having as many strict rules and having
some more realistic ideas/beliefs then the three biggest world religions of today.

I have nothing personal against Buddhism. I just disagree with it.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Is it just me, but everytime I see something about Buddhism (or a similar religion). I see a little message flashing in my head.

(Watch out! It's Buddhism, another death religion that complains about how horrible life is and preaches how life will be so much better when your dead.)

To me, I don't see such a clear connection between Buddhism and Atheistism. Other then Buddhism not having as many strict rules and having
some more realistic ideas/beliefs then the three biggest world religions of today.

I have nothing personal against Buddhism. I just disagree with it.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~
Buddhism is, strictly speaking, an atheist religion - or philosophy, whichever you prefer - because it does not involve deities.

But yea, most religions are just death cults in one way or another. Just look at Christianity. they had to invent a rule against commiting suicide, or all the believers would hurry up & kill themselves before they accidentially (or perhaps less so) started sinning. Pure lunacy.

In Japan, a number of Buddhist monesteries could be quite militant and unscrupulous in whom they sided with to gain power.

Also, the ongoing Sri Lankan civil war.

When was the last time a budhist was hypocritical
The Thibetan ex-theocrats do world class hypocrisy every time they start whining about having been tortured by the Chinese. If they're buddhists, surely they should accept that it was because they did something naughty in a past life rather than bitching about it? Anyone would think they didn't think that crap about the wheel of dharma doesn't apply to them, and was just an excuse to treat the rest of the country's population like shit when they were running the show...

Here's the way I look at it.

Christianity gave the world Christ, the crusades, The Catholic Church, The Pope, Christian fundementalists, The Life Of Brian, Protestants and Evanesence.
Islam gave the world al-qaeda and friends, a whole buttload of names for the same thing, shariah law, female coveralls and Abu Hamza.
Judaism killed Christ, gave the world silly hats that neither protect your face from the sun nor your head from the rain, and because they're Jewish everyone hates them because they are Jewish.

Budhism gave the world Kung-Fu! I rest my case.

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.

I'll start the ball rolling with a few general arguments for Buddhists:

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.

I don't believe in reïncarnation & find the idea silly.
That said, i know hardly anything about buddhism so i refrain from making any comments on it sofar

Yes!

Bash those placid bastards!

Curse their peaceful and idyllic ponderings, the buggers!

New question: Do aethists exist for the sheer pleasure of proving their point (is there a universal aethists point?) is better than that of religions/philosiphies/what ever else they arent praticularly fond of?
Do you contribute anything, or just bash?

The fact that you participate in a discussion like this means you enjoy "proving your point", so, are you an atheist? :p

Good to know, the smartest minds are aethist.

No, the smartest minds are those who think for themselves & reach their own conclusions based on their own reasonning

No, the smartest minds are those who think for themselves & reach their own conclusions based on their own reasonning


wich usually excludes christians, who were taught to be so, since birth, in most cases.

Do you guys ever concede you are wrong?

I would, given sufficient & sound argumentation i could be swayed into religion, but it'll require alot more then just "faith", it would require empirical proof

In Japan, a number of Buddhist monesteries could be quite militant and unscrupulous in whom they sided with to gain power.

Corrupt monasteries in a corrupt Japan. Not to mention, these militants were not true Buddhists, but usually Taoist Warrior Monks. The difference is subtle, but the ideas of the Tao were build on ideas that could help society (though many times it was skewed) whereas Buddhist philosophy (not religion mind you as these are 2 seperate things) is based on the enlightenment of the individual.

But yea, most religions are just death cults in one way or another. Just look at Christianity. they had to invent a rule against commiting suicide, or all the believers would hurry up & kill themselves before they accidentially (or perhaps less so) started sinning. Pure lunacy.

Hmm... never looked at Christianity in *that* light.... :p

Hmm... never looked at Christianity in *that* light.... :pReally? That's the first thing that entered my mind when I found out that suicide is a sin. Right after that, I started having this creepy suspicion that the whole "Thy shall not murder" was to prevent parents from killing their children, so they'd be assured a spot in heaven. After all, Any real believer that loved his/her child would naturally want to make sure the child got in to heaven, right?

Corrupt monasteries in a corrupt Japan.
You say that as if it makes it better, or covers up Buddhism's faults, it doesn't. A strict interpretation of Xtianity is entirely pacifisitic and based on (almost) Ghandi-like ideals of passive-aggressive rebellion against persecution.
However, Xtians get shit over the Crusades (even though those were a Catholic invetion, but, yeah).

Really? That's the first thing that entered my mind when I found out that suicide is a sin. Right after that, I started having this creepy suspicion that the whole "Thy shall not murder" was to prevent parents from killing their children, so they'd be assured a spot in heaven. After all, Any real believer that loved his/her child would naturally want to make sure the child got in to heaven, right?

That would be logical yea, damn that's spooky & creepy :p

In my experience, Buddhists have never really been a major presense in my general area, so I haven't had any encounters with them. I really don't have a problem with Buddhism since they haven't done anything to me. In fact, I agree with some of the tenets of Buddhism and find it not all that far from my own ideas in places.

However, there is a strong sense of resignation and asceticism that I can't stand. The whole nirvana thing strikes me as heavy duty nihilism and self-destructiveness. It certainly isn't what I'd call healthy.

In my experience, Buddhists have never really been a major presense in my general area, so I haven't had any encounters with them. I really don't have a problem with Buddhism since they haven't done anything to me. In fact, I agree with some of the tenets of Buddhism and find it not all that far from my own ideas in places.
Which is probably the reason no one feels the need to bash them. Buddhism doesn't have the numbers of Islam or Xtianity, nor have they garnered the same bizarre paranoia that Judaism seems to create in some people. Finally, they never really ran afoul of the Xtian propaganda machine and so no major anti-Buddha stereotypes were developed.
Basically, Buddhism is the kid who sat in the back of the class, got C's all the time, and never bothered or spoke to anyone. Wicca is the annoying kid who no one cared for, Satanism was the kid who ate paste and may or may not have killed Wicca's cat, and Xtianity and Islam are the two rival school bullies fighting over who will be whose bitch.

Buddhism is my favourite religion, and I have no problem with buddhists, but it still involves believing in things that dont exist, and wouldnt that be a hindrance when trying to achieve enlightenment? Wouldnt it be ironic that the only way to achieve nirvana was to stop being a buddhist? Or at least funny.

Which is probably the reason no one feels the need to bash them. Buddhism doesn't have the numbers of Islam or Xtianity, nor have they garnered the same bizarre paranoia that Judaism seems to create in some people. Finally, they never really ran afoul of the Xtian propaganda machine and so no major anti-Buddha stereotypes were developed.
Basically, Buddhism is the kid who sat in the back of the class, got C's all the time, and never bothered or spoke to anyone. Wicca is the annoying kid who no one cared for, Satanism was the kid who ate paste and may or may not have killed Wicca's cat, and Xtianity and Islam are the two rival school bullies fighting over who will be whose bitch.

And atheism was what? The really smug, red-headed git who was fantastic at sport, got straight A's, and that all the teacher's loved, who then went onto Univeristy, got 3 degress, after which he became an ace burger-flipper for 15 years? :p

Which is probably the reason no one feels the need to bash them. Buddhism doesn't have the numbers of Islam or Xtianity, nor have they garnered the same bizarre paranoia that Judaism seems to create in some people. Finally, they never really ran afoul of the Xtian propaganda machine and so no major anti-Buddha stereotypes were developed.
Basically, Buddhism is the kid who sat in the back of the class, got C's all the time, and never bothered or spoke to anyone. Wicca is the annoying kid who no one cared for, Satanism was the kid who ate paste and may or may not have killed Wicca's cat, and Xtianity and Islam are the two rival school bullies fighting over who will be whose bitch.

That would explain my irritation with it: I always hate the boring kids.

And atheism was what? The really smug, red-headed git who was fantastic at sport, got straight A's, and that all the teacher's loved, who then went onto Univeristy, got 3 degress, after which he became an ace burger-flipper for 15 years? :p
No, Atheism is the kid who only ever showed up on the first day each year, and then only long enough to get in fist fights with all the other students (well, except Buddhism), piss off the teachers, and get expelled for another 365 days.

Is it just me, but everytime I see something about Buddhism (or a similar religion). I see a little message flashing in my head.

(Watch out! It's Buddhism, another death religion that complains about how horrible life is and preaches how life will be so much better when your dead.)

To me, I don't see such a clear connection between Buddhism and Atheistism. Other then Buddhism not having as many strict rules and having
some more realistic ideas/beliefs then the three biggest world religions of today.

I have nothing personal against Buddhism. I just disagree with it.

I would characterize Buddhism to be the exact opposite of a "death religion". It's about life and living. That's what the whole idea of reincarnation is about: not being able to escape life by dying. If one doesn't confront the obstacles in this life, then they just show up again in the next life and again and again until one finally takes up the challenge and overcomes it. This is not to say that one won't encounter the same scenarios again, but once one has a solution, the scenario ceases to be a problem.

Buddhism and atheism have in common the lack of a belief in deities, but Buddhism defines itself by the ideas it embraces. One doesn't practice Buddhism by praising Buddhas. One practices Buddhism by applying the the teachings of Buddhas to daily life.

Buddhism is a healthy religion to practise because it encourages people to do good deeds and to be good to other people. In a practical day-to-day basis, you have to admit Buddhism is extremly constructive and motivating, as it simply seeks to minimize conflict.

It does not

1) Cross any political ideal (Christianity and Gay rights issues)
2) Declare ideological war against books (Harry Potter)
3) Encourage friction against other religions.

And I think that has been proven by the very fact that Christianity is bashed and defended so often while Buddhism remains a rarely discussed subject.

Buddhism is about moderation, walking the middle path, not going to extremes. Hope no one gets offended by this.

It has come to my attention that the atheists of this forum (and most other places for that matter) have been so focused on shooting down Jesus that we have let a fat guy with a rather large prayer wheel sneak up behind our back. While there have been many instances of debate with Christians, and a few with members of the other Abrahamic religions, almost nothing has been done to attack Buddhism. This sends Buddhists the message that their philosophy is perfectly logical and obvious, which it most certainly is not. I am reminded of a thread awhile back wherein someone asked why all atheists don't just convert to Buddhism. It had to be explained in detail that they are in fact two radically different codes of belief. Buddhists should not feel so secure. I should not be bored. Thus, this thread shall be devoted to arguing with Buddhists.

I'll start the ball rolling with a few general arguments for Buddhists:

Why do you think reincarnation exists? Why should it be avoided?

By the way, this thread in no way endorses flaming, trolling, etc., vs. Buddhists, just good clean wholesome argument. That is all.


It just isnt stylish to attack Buddhism right now. When it becomes chic to do so, many will jump on that bandwagon.

You say that as if it makes it better, or covers up Buddhism's faults, it doesn't. A strict interpretation of Xtianity is entirely pacifisitic and based on (almost) Ghandi-like ideals of passive-aggressive rebellion against persecution.
However, Xtians get shit over the Crusades (even though those were a Catholic invetion, but, yeah).

You do know that there was only the Catholic denomination before the Reformation, right?

This is all very odd...

I find the responses of some who seem to want to defend Buddhism odd because they seem so un-Buddhist. Not all of them, mind you, but certainly some of them.

I find it odd that some atheists would endorse Christianity's attempt to claim that religion is about truth. (An example... The best way to win the ID argument is to point out that evolutionary theory does not entail that God doesn't exist. Evolutionary theory has no comment about the creation of the universe. But by arguing with the supporters of ID, we allow their wedge strategy to succeed.) Religion, at its best, is about something else. That doesn't mean anyone here should buy into it (I certainly have given no reason for you to do so), but some of the comments suggest its religion vs. science. That's odd since they really are different things altogether.

And I find it most odd that some have a need to create a fungible group to bash. (Other fungible groups that are "bad": Christians, Jews, Men. You know... cause all men are rapists.) But some here have clarified... We aren't here to bash Buddhists... We are here to bash (let's see if I've got this right) "moronic Buddhists that believe in some of the things (reincarnation, karma, bodhisattvas) that some buddhists have believed over the history of that system." So really we aren't talking about Buddhism. We are talking about some people. Let's just talk about those people and what we don't like about them? Perhaps because that wouldn't be fun. By lumping a whole bunch of people together, it feels more satisfying to bash them all at once. And then we can claim that we didn't mean that person or this other person, because they don't fit the smaller group we really had in mind, though didn't make explicit until later on.

But my real concern is why the need to bash people or ideas? Have we forgotten how to have civil discourse about different ideas?

I'm sorry... I forgot where I was. :headbang:

No, Atheism is the kid who only ever showed up on the first day each year, and then only long enough to get in fist fights with all the other students (well, except Buddhism), piss off the teachers, and get expelled for another 365 days.

Oh, yeah. I remember those kids! We used to call them "Rebels without a clue". :p

But my real concern is why the need to bash people or ideas? Have we forgotten how to have civil discourse about different ideas?

I'm sorry... I forgot where I was. :headbang:

Hypsensitivity can inflate the sense of bashing.