Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

From my experience on other religious forums, when I've offered Buddhism as an alternative faith to Atheism, they've rejected it. When people are about to become Atheists, and I propose trying Buddhism before they turn their back on religion, they ignore it. And when Atheists have realized they have found religion, they hardly ever become Buddhists.

It's kinda a regional religion or something. Or maybe there are just too many sutras to keep up with. I'm not really sure.

Atheist usually stands for somebody who do not believe in God in general or the mysticism of the world.

Usually people of the far-east identify themselves because they do not believe in western variation of god. They still believe in god and or their is a god, however not the same idea because of the cultural differences and time-frames.

Buddhism is a practice rather then a faith. The idea is to attain the Buddha like state. It was started in terms of preserving India via a prince who literally saw how terrible his people was living outside the walls of his domain. It also borrows a lot from Hinduism. While the "method of thinking" or "Way of life exist" you are welcome to practice irregardless of religious belief system.

The problem with Buddhism is the missionaries saw them as pagan symbols. Bashing the statues among many force of behavior against and towards the people. Which brings us to modern day England v. Gandhi and the civil-war that followed.

In response to the original post question.I would suggest that Buddhism is one of the atheistic religions (belief systems) for sure.It being a dualistic religion that attempts to explain the mechanisms of the physical and which interestingly only deals with + and - components which it claims cancel out.It is a religion that denies that neutrals exist therefore and makes no allowance for them.

Neutrals do exist in nature though clearly so they haven’t cancelled out as the Buddhism religion claims.

It’s a religion that doesn’t understand vibration and how nature produces it.

+ and - electromagnetic forces in nature don’t cancel, they are balanced by the formula +/-=+/-

The brain is constructed such that electrical signals pass through vibrating electromagnetic fields thus producing sinusoidal outputs due to the push/pull influence the signals are subjected to as they pass through these vibrating fields.

<SNERK!>

Mysticism is the realization that religion is subjective. Mysticism and supernaturalism are diametrically opposed. It seems to me that Buddhism is more open to mysticism than western religions, that is, mysticism is more often accepted as the ideal in Buddhism but not so much in Christianity. To a Christian, especially a fundamentalist, calling Christ a mystic would be anathema.

Second-hand religions generally degrade to supernaturalism. In that sense, labeling somebody an atheist usually means that they deny the supernatural, which is literalism.

Atheists and fundamentalists both are talking about religion in the literal sense, rather than metaphorically, so they are closely related, that is to say atheists and believers are both sides of the same coin.

Buddhism is a religion whose claims have been proven to be false by an alternative science that explains vibration with known forces in nature.

+=- and -=+ is not the correct formula for nature

+/-=+/- is the correct formula for nature

All neutrals vibrate along with everything else due to +/- electromagnetic forces vibratory balancing with +/- electromagnetic forces.

Neutrals exist in nature contrary to Buddhism philosophical belief systems.

Of course they do.

Belief systems have been separated and the balance maintained.

Made me laugh!!!

As Atheism and Buddhism has no understanding of vibration and the alternative scientific principles behind it,it remains a “Prisoner of Consciousness”.

There is no control element in Buddhism or Atheism’s religious science belief systems because neither have any understanding of AWARENESS and its relationship to CONSCIOUSNESS and how this relates to the philosophical or psychological.

All sciences are interconnected.

Inward only meditative practices are one sided just like the science that originates from it like the religious science’s single Big Bang theory which is proven nonsense by observation being a one sided attractive theory.

The Attraction =Repulsion and Repulsion = Attraction formula doesn’t provide a balance.

The Attraction/Repulsion =Attraction /Repulsion electromagnetic formula does provide a vibratory balance.

The + and - vibrating forces (+/-=+/-) in nature are swallowed up by vibrating NEUTRALS

All holes in the universe VIBRATE.

The electromagnetic fields which saturate the universe preceded any big bangs/big crunches.

It's only an alternative FAILED religious science that has been derived from an alternative FAILED religious philosophy that is claiming otherwise.

Vibration in nature, resulting from a balanced combination of the 4 off independent electromagnetic force interactions -/-…-/+….+/-…..+/+ , explained by the overall balanced vibratory formula +/-=+/- , corresponds to dualism philosophically.Everything vibrates in the universe including consciousness which the Buddha was a prisoner of because he had no true awareness whatsoever.Awareness sits above consciousness and is separate from it.

I would have said that awareness was consciousness, for without awareness 'consciousness' would really be a series of mental habits/associations/reactions (which may also result in habitual emotions) taking place....which isn't anyones traditional understanding of consciousness

No,Awareness and Unawareness are not Consciousness.

Only Unawareness claims that it and Awareness are Consciousness.

Awareness doesn’t claim this because Awareness takes control over Consciousness.

Unawareness doesn’t take control over Consciousness because Unawareness doesn’t believe anything exists to be be able to take that Control.

Everything vibrates including consciousness.

There are 2 types of consciousness in psychology.The in and out of the moment states.Awareness and Unawareness are neither of these 2 consciousness states

Where in my reply did I mention 'unawareness'? You do realise that:

- it is ironic that by inserting 'unawareness' into your reply you were unaware that it is meaningless to my reply / I didn't mention it...while apparently claiming superior knowledge of consciousness

- these things rely on how you define consciousness

That said, I don't think this is a simple discussion. In my own observations I've come to divide the realm of thought/awareness into 3 states: Sub-conscious, Semi-conscious, and Conscious. Because in highly dynamic situations you can make a split second decision, and afterwards spend quite a bit of time unpacking the reasoning - which you you can only do if you have an awareness of them, but which take place so fast during the incident that you aren't fully conscious of the depth & spread of the reasoning (so 'semi-conscious' seems to better fit than either conscious or sub-conscious)

Dynamic situations are the easist place to see the semi-conscious at work, but it occurs all the time.

From this aspect, you have an argument for awareness and consciousness being different...but again, it depends on how you define them.

My own observation places conscious thought at somewhere between 3-15% of our brain power...though I suspect it is much closer to the lower end. So again there is an argument for awareness and consciousness being related but different...but again it depends on how you define them.

I know all about consciousness because I am aware.You don’t because you are unaware.

I mentioned it because it is relevant.

Consciousness and Awareness/Unawareness are different.

There are only 2 waking consciousness states that you need to know about and these are known in psychology as the in and out of the moment states.

Theses are experiential states that we transition backwards and forwards between in either awareness or unawareness.

In your case, unawareness.

As you don’t believe that there is a part of you that exists which can exercise control over consciousness.

You don’t.

You just transition backwards and forwards all day long in total unawareness whilst doing your out of consciousness sink inward only dualistic meditation.

Trapped, a prisoner of consciousness merely knowledge gathering.

I am not consciousness as in the “in” or “out” of the moment consciousness states.

I am not awareness or unawareness either.

I am aware or unaware however.

in/out of the moment consciousness =in/out of the moment consciousness

Awareness/Unawareness =Awareness/Unawareness

In the way you mean, I doubt that very much at all. The blue is a journey of a lifetime that probably never stops evolving. The red does not have absolutes, but rather, it has degrees.

It appears you have heard a large number of words strung together, liked how they sounded / made sense to you....then become good at repeating them...for you appear not to comprehend the journey, nor the degrees of awareness, nor do you seem to understand the underlying semantics of what you are writing.

If it makes sense to you, and works for you, then that is a good thing for you.

However, 'I'm right' semantic discussions never makes for an interesting discussion.

To be clearer about why I say we are dealing in semantics - our brain does not think in words. It thinks in concepts / images / feelings. From there, our subconscious looks for the closest word that approximates what our brain is conceiving. For complicated, subjective concepts, words rarely capture with absolute accuracy our concept...which is why we have to spend a lot of time trying to accurately explain them (and why we sometimes struggle for words)

Our explanation we can try to encapsulate into one or two words like awareness and consciousness.

A different person comes up with a differing explanation that they can try to encapsulate into one or two words, like awareness and consciouscness.

In these circumstances, if the underlying explanation differs, then it is a mistake to think we are talking about the same thing when we use the words awareness and consciousness.

Once you have differing underlying explanations, then you will apply them differently to a 'logic' argument / structure.

Because of this 'I'm right' semantic discussions are not interesting (as the person holding the 'I'm right' position doesn't understand the issue with them believing they are 'right')

But once again, if it works for you, then that is a good thing for you.

A "enlightened" person or mystic is easily confused with an atheist by fundamentalists or literalists because they can't be pinned down as to their religious beliefs. Fundamentalists can easily relate to atheists because their vocabulary is the same and both may slip from one side to the other throughout their lives.

Buddhists may be more open to the enlightened person or mystic than Christians because the mystic is more or less anathema to Christianity. But Buddhists also have their fundamentalist sects.