| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
politicalhumanist
Real Change activist
Joined: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 1426
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: on the streets of Olympia, WA
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
Buddhists are some of the coolest people I know! I am even going into Buddhism; to become an atheist Buddhist. Buddhism is great for those looking for a spiritual side. Remember spiritual is not the Holy Ghost - or it does'nt have too be religious.
_________________
http://freethinkernation.com
cooperative collective consortium of atheists, agnostics, brights, naturalists, humanists, and even believers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | I have a large number of Zen koans all over my desk here at work.
Buddhism seems to me to be the most enlightened of all religions i've heard of.
The Dalai Lama insists on the veracity of science and admits that he will change even his most core beliefs if they contradict scientific fact. |
Moloth,
Don;t believe it!
The following is typical Dalai Lama thinking when it comes to Buddhism and science.
"If science proves that rebirth does not happen, then Buddhists should stop beliving in rebirth - until then Buddhists are justified in doing so."
That is such a large logical fallacy, that it itself should make one question how 'ational Buddhism is?
BTW Buddhism is anti-rational.
According to Buddhism - A can be both A and not A (at the sametime)
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Abraxus wrote: | | Daisuke64 wrote: | | Thank you, SvZurich. To respone to Abraxus on his previous quote, while science is mostly concerned with observing nature and the material world and developing theories on how the universe really works, buddhism is mostly concerned with human suffering and the way to eradicate such suffering, to become truly happy. That is what I believe is the utlity of buddhism for this world. |
My point was simply that if the Dalai Lama himself admits that he will change even his most core beliefs if they contradict scientific fact, what is the need for Buddhist 'core beliefs' (since it is dictated by science)? As for the eradication of human suffering and becoming truly happy, is there any evidence showing a positive correlation between Buddhism and said objectives? |
how many Buddhist murderers have their been? what is crime like at a Buddhist monestary? How many wars have been waged in the name of Buddhism? I look at Buddhist monks and the people who put effort into following buddhist doctrine and I, personally, have found them to be peaceful, introspective, kind, giving, non-threatening in the extreme and overall seemingly very happy.
In my own personal anecdotal evidence, There DOES seem to be a correlation between Buddhism and happiness or peace. |
Moloth,
Buddhism is better then most religions, but not all .Jainism scores higher (but is equally irrational).
However, Buddhisnm is not all preaceful, people have been killed as heretics in Buddhism, a whole schoool of Buddhism was wiped out that way.
Also, look at Sri Lanka, the monks there are nationalistic and violent.
As for Buddhists being happier, I disagree. I think Buddhism tends to attrack more layed back people, so that impression can easily arise.
However, after my years involved in Buddhism (two different schools), and having worked with Buddhists from across most traditions, I know from first hand experience that alcholism, (a particular problem amonst Zen Roshi's), embezzlement, fights, sexual assult, etc., I have witnessed it all. There is nothing like living in Buddhist centre's and being an insider (I was a Dharma teacher for many years), to see the inner workings of Buddhism.
I can remember one of my own teacher's having a massive argument with another Dharma tescher over the telephone, - cussing and swearing - this was just a few minutes before a dharma teaching. He then sat in the Zendo and give a beautiful Dharma talk, smiling and looking totally blissed out. Only to return to his room, when the teaching had finished, re-dial the person he was speaking too, and resume where he left off.
Everyone was talking after the teachings about how calm and peaceful the teacher was, and what an example he was of the power of the teachings? If only they knew!
Not saying this is true of all, but such things are not rare.
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
Last edited by nogods on Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:33 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Abraxus wrote: |
Looking at the original post, I'm not so sure. If Buddhists thought of themselves as atheists, then why ask such a question?
|
Buddha certainly did, though atheism would of course not be a term he would be familiar with.
Buddha rejected the idea of a creator God.
Buddhists believe in gods (one of the six realms), but they do not believe in a creator God with a capital G. This is something Buddhism actively rejects. - Though some Buddhists in the West talk about God and nirvana as if they are one and the same. But, then they are not really talking about a theistic creator God, but moving into liberal theology, such as describing God as the ground of all being.
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J_Lazarus wrote: |
Well I think you're hesitant because you think it should be a necessary condition for being an atheist that the atheist is a supporter of other views that we deem rational or scientific. In fact, I don't think there's any such requirement. It'd be *nice* if all atheists supported what you and I would consider rational, well thought out, and/or tested by science, but there's simply no more to being an atheist than disbelieving in gods. Anything that comes after that is up to the individual atheist -- but atheists are by no means rational or supportive of rational ideas by default. |
Great posts Laz,
Eastern philosophy is atheistic, as you say, but as you rightly point out this is far from saying it is therefore rational or naturalistic.
This is why I prefere to describe myself as a naturalist, rationalist, freethinker.
A naturalist, rationalist, freethinker. is obviously an atheist (imo), however a atheist is not necessarily a naturalist, rationalist or freethinker.
Buddhism is atheistic, without being naturalist (or rational - at least in the Western understanding).
Stalinism was atheistic but certainly not a promoter of free thought.
A naturalist can also be anti-freethought. In fact some atheists seem to have little respect for free thought.
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 12:24 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | You've never had a problem with more then one answer?
Exercise the right side of your brain from time to time, it's good for you.  |
| Abraxus wrote: | | This actually has to do with the way one writes. In Buddhism, if stuff usually has more than one meaning, then it's ambiguous (you can look up the definition of that word). In science, you can always have more than one answer, but they can't be ambiguous in any way. Otherwise, like someone said... it's poetry. |
Ambiguous; you say it like it's a bad thing.
A treasure given is not as treasured as a treasure earned.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 12:24 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nogods wrote: | Moloth,
Don;t believe it!
The following is typical Dalai Lama thinking when it comes to Buddhism and science.
"If science proves that rebirth does not happen, then Buddhists should stop beliving in rebirth - until then Buddhists are justified in doing so."
That is such a large logical fallacy, that it itself should make one question how 'ational Buddhism is?
BTW Buddhism is anti-rational.
According to Buddhism - A can be both A and not A (at the sametime)
nogods |
Like any religion, Buddhism has many different flavors. Tibetans are the fundamentalist Buddhists, they read their scriptures as literally true.
To paint all Buddhists with one brush is like painting all Christians with one brush.
Koans are from the Zen Buddhist tradition, whom are generally atheistic. What I enjoy about Zen is that it takes the best of Taoism and Buddhism and melds them together.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | nogods wrote: | Moloth,
Don;t believe it!
The following is typical Dalai Lama thinking when it comes to Buddhism and science.
"If science proves that rebirth does not happen, then Buddhists should stop beliving in rebirth - until then Buddhists are justified in doing so."
That is such a large logical fallacy, that it itself should make one question how 'ational Buddhism is?
BTW Buddhism is anti-rational.
According to Buddhism - A can be both A and not A (at the sametime)
nogods |
Like any religion, Buddhism has many different flavors. Tibetans are the fundamentalist Buddhists, they read their scriptures as literally true.
To paint all Buddhists with one brush is like painting all Christians with one brush.
Koans are from the Zen Buddhist tradition, whom are generally atheistic. What I enjoy about Zen is that it takes the best of Taoism and Buddhism and melds them together. |
I was responding specifically to Moloth's post about the Dalai Lama's often stated claim that he accepts the scientific method, even when it is applied to Buddhuism, yet if you examine what he actually says, it is far from credible.
The DL's statements about science and rebirth, for example, are no more rational then a theist saying, Science can not prove God does not exist, therefore God does exist."
Tibetans are not the fundamentalists of the Buddhist world, if by fundamentalist you mean they believe in karma and rebirth and the six realms of samsara, all schools of Buddhism accept rebirth, karma, six realms etc, whether that be Theravada, or one of the 100's of Mahayana schools.
Also the idea that Zen Buddhism does not accept these things also is not true. Zen Buddhists do accept rebirth and karma. If you visit a zen temple in Japan or Korea, you will see offerings being made, they have gurdian deities to keep away evil spirits. At a zen ordination ceremony wooden clappers are banged together at important parts of the ceremony to scare away spirits who may wish to harm the dharma.
Admittedly, Zen doe not emphasise these things as much as other schools, but that is a far call from saying it rejects them.
Also, Tibetan Buddhism, like all schools of Buddhism are atheistic, there is nothing permanent, nothing that has inheriant existence (to use a Buddhist term), such a view rules out a theistic deity, ie, a trancendent creator God.
There are certain views one must hold to be Buddhist, these views are referred to as the seals of Buddhism, in that they confirm the authanticity of a teaching being part of the Buddha Dharma - abit like a wax seal on an envelope authenticating who sent it.
The first of these seals is that all things are inpermanent - such a view rules out a theistic God.
The third seal is that all things are empty; they are without inherent existence - again such a view rules out a theistic God.
If one believes in a theistic God then you hold a '***incorrect' view and one's views are outside of the Buddha Dharma.
***The term incorrect, I always use to refere to as 'incompatible' - incorrect sounds too strong, as if one is saying one is making a judgement, as when a theist accuses someone of heresy. Buddhism would say, "Nothing wrong with holding that view if that is what one believes, however it is incompatible with the Buddha Dharma."
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 6:24 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| politicalhumanist wrote: | | Buddhists are some of the coolest people I know! I am even going into Buddhism; to become an atheist Buddhist. Buddhism is great for those looking for a spiritual side. Remember spiritual is not the Holy Ghost - or it does'nt have too be religious. |
Many Mahayana Schools of Buddhism can be classified as atheist, but religious.
Mahayana & Theravada Buddhism both believe that it is the view that one's actions have consequences that continue after one's death that makes a world view religious. By that standard Buddhism does view itself as a religion.
The very word 'Dharma' has religious connotations in the East. Dharma was a religious term used by different religious groups, long before Buddha taught the Buddha Dharma.
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abraxus
Forum Leader
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1914
Local time: 4:24 PM
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nogods wrote: | | Abraxus wrote: |
Looking at the original post, I'm not so sure. If Buddhists thought of themselves as atheists, then why ask such a question?
|
Buddha certainly did, though atheism would of course not be a term he would be familiar with.
Buddha rejected the idea of a creator God.
Buddhists believe in gods (one of the six realms), but they do not believe in a creator God with a capital G. This is something Buddhism actively rejects. - Though some Buddhists in the West talk about God and nirvana as if they are one and the same. But, then they are not really talking about a theistic creator God, but moving into liberal theology, such as describing God as the ground of all being.
nogods |
These days, just about anyone can claim to be an 'atheist'. Buddhists are atheists. Satanists are atheists. Even theists are 'atheists' about other religions. I can understand the need some of us might feel to 'extend the community' but it won't really make a difference to the common theist mind. Only if you don't believe in the supernatural, are you an atheist. Everyone else is either sitting on the fence or playing both sides.
| CET wrote: |
Ambiguous; you say it like it's a bad thing.
A treasure given is not as treasured as a treasure earned. |
Was that Buddha? Because that was pretty clear.
_________________
~I'm waiting for the day when mankind will outgrow religion.
~My only regret is that I never left religion sooner.
Software Utilities Famous Philosopher Quotes (1:41, Divx 5, 8.8 MB) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 12:24 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nogods wrote: | I was responding specifically to Moloth's post about the Dalai Lama's often stated claim that he accepts the scientific method, even when it is applied to Buddhuism, yet if you examine what he actually says, it is far from credible.
The DL's statements about science and rebirth, for example, are no more rational then a theist saying, Science can not prove God does not exist, therefore God does exist."
Tibetans are not the fundamentalists of the Buddhist world, if by fundamentalist you mean they believe in karma and rebirth and the six realms of samsara, all schools of Buddhism accept rebirth, karma, six realms etc, whether that be Theravada, or one of the 100's of Mahayana schools. |
I'll not make any excuses for the DL, because Tibetan Buddhists believe in magic and literal reincarnation. Tibetans are more or less, theists, and I treat their discussion as such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism
| Wikipedia wrote: | - belief that a continuity of consciousness (identity) and potential to display beneficial qualities can be recognised so that high lamas are returned to their previous status (known as tulkus). Returning to be trained in the teachings through rebirth such as the Dalai Lama.
- a practice wherein lost or hidden ancient scriptures (termas) are recovered by individuals who are usually spiritual masters (cf. tertons).
- belief that a Buddha can manifest in human form, such as in the person of Padmasambhava, the saint who brought Tibetan Buddhism to the Himalayas.
|
This does not sound like an atheistic belief system, this is an embrace of the supernatural. The DL's quote is in line with such beliefs and argumentation styles.
| nogods wrote: | | Also the idea that Zen Buddhism does not accept these things also is not true. Zen Buddhists do accept rebirth and karma. |
Who argued that? To reject such things would be to move itself outside of the dharmic tradition, and it could no longer call itself Buddhism.
| nogods wrote: | If you visit a zen temple in Japan or Korea, you will see offerings being made, they have gurdian deities to keep away evil spirits. At a zen ordination ceremony wooden clappers are banged together at important parts of the ceremony to scare away spirits who may wish to harm the dharma.
Admittedly, Zen doe not emphasise these things as much as other schools, but that is a far call from saying it rejects them. |
I've not visited Zen temples in Japan or Korea. However, I don't see burnt offerings or guardians as necessarily being supernatural. These are traditions that speak to the right side of the brain.
My draw to Zen is that it is my understanding that it is an atheistic religion that combines the best of Taoism and Buddhism, my two favorite religious philosophies.
| nogods wrote: | | Also, Tibetan Buddhism, like all schools of Buddhism are atheistic, there is nothing permanent, nothing that has inheriant existence (to use a Buddhist term), such a view rules out a theistic deity, ie, a trancendent creator God. |
Tibetans believe in literal reincarnation from one life to another. That's why when the DL dies, they immediately scour the world looking for the body the DL has reincarnated into. That doesn't sound very atheistic to me.
| nogods wrote: | There are certain views one must hold to be Buddhist, these views are referred to as the seals of Buddhism, in that they confirm the authanticity of a teaching being part of the Buddha Dharma - abit like a wax seal on an envelope authenticating who sent it.
The first of these seals is that all things are inpermanent - such a view rules out a theistic God.
The third seal is that all things are empty; they are without inherent existence - again such a view rules out a theistic God.
If one believes in a theistic God then you hold a '***incorrect' view and one's views are outside of the Buddha Dharma.
***The term incorrect, I always use to refere to as 'incompatible' - incorrect sounds too strong, as if one is saying one is making a judgement, as when a theist accuses someone of heresy. Buddhism would say, "Nothing wrong with holding that view if that is what one believes, however it is incompatible with the Buddha Dharma."
nogods |
It sounds like you're thinking of god in the terms of a personal god, an anthropomorphic deity. The dharmic tradition accepts god, but not as the western idea of an anthropomorphic deity, but more like The Force in Star Wars. I don't personally accept that, but many dharmic traditions do, such as Hinduism (not all traditions), Sikhism, and some branches of Buddhism such as the Tibetan branch.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 12:24 AM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | Ambiguous; you say it like it's a bad thing.
A treasure given is not as treasured as a treasure earned. |
| Abraxus wrote: | | Was that Buddha? Because that was pretty clear. |
No, just me. I'll take it though! 
CET, the next Buddha! Look out, he's redefining dharma with a shovel and combat boots! *PANG*
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tantric
Visitor
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 5
Local time: 3:24 AM
Location: athens, GA
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the next buddha will have skin the color of dirt, six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. oh, yeah, and a freakin' righteous 'fro. and sunglasses - 'cause you gotta wear your sunglasses, so you can feel cool.
after he encounters nirvana, he will be tested. the MAN, lord of addiction and greed, will rise up before him and offer him all the moneys of the world. the buddha will look up and say "they are but dirt and ashes to my eyes, " and the money will burn and the gold will rust into dirt.
then the MAN will threat with all the armies of the oppressors. guns will be aimed, missles will be armed, bombs will lock on target. the MAN will push his button and the weapons of hell will fly. then the buddha will look upon them and smile, and they will turn to flower petals and tabs of LSD and rain down upon the peoples.
at last, the MAN, knowing he has lost, will challenge "you are alone, who will know your accomplishment?" and the buddha will look towards the camera and smile, "the world is my witness".
i keep telling people this, and they just laugh - "wow, what an imagination", as if i'm kidding.
a guide to understanding buddhists in the 21st:
1)traditional asian buddhists
2)nihilistic buddhists aka Kerouac (endangered species)
3)hippy-dippy new age buddhists - euroamerican new agers, know *nothing* about buddhism
4)scientific buddhists - euroamerican naturalist atheists just the facts buddhists, know about the buddha, not much about buddhism
5)postmodern buddhists - all origins, know LOTS about buddhism, mostly proscience |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 8:24 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tantric
Visitor
Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 5
Local time: 3:24 AM
Location: athens, GA
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| is that about apple, inc or the garden of eden, and how does it related to being stoned and this girl? is she stoned and thinking about the fruit of knowledge? or does it somehow imply that the fruit of knowledge is pot, and that serpent is a drug pusher? dippy-chick, imho, does NOT look like eve. i need to get back to work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
