Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Krumple wrote:
See that's just the thing. Buddhism doesn't actually teach reincarnation.

Since an earlier post of yours agrees with my general point that Buddhism, too, is into superstition, I don't think it's necessary to argue out the particular point about incarnation.

There is another really common misconception about the Buddha himself which hundreds of thousands of people believe is true. They think the buddha was some "fat guy" which is a not accurate at all yet you see it repeated often as if it were fact. This concept of reincarnation is no different. People assume it is true because they have heard others talk about it as if it were true. The reason being? Because absolutely no one fact checks, they just take what ever statements are made assuming truth and repeat them as if they were factual.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Yeah, you missed that you have absolutely no basis upon which to speak for most atheists.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Yeah, you missed that you have absolutely no basis upon which to speak for most atheists.

Not my problem, if I just gave an opinion...Based directly upon what they have said themselves...And you "think" that that gives me absolutely no basis...Or in some way, is talking about them, Or claiming things, they have never even said...Or whatever way your little mind thinks this stuff up...

Go back and reread what I wrote again...

And if you truly feel this way...Then you have got no basis, to even allege that Buddhists are the most selfish or not... 2 Cents

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander....

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I know that gives you absolutely no basis. You sound like some kind of ignorant hillbilly when you come out with this ****. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York has twice conducted "ARIS" surveys--American Religious Identification Survey. The last, in 2008, showed 1.6% of the population of the United States identifying themselves as atheists (this does not include those who respond as Humanists, or "Don't Know," or "Don't care"). Out of more than 300 million people, that's well over 4,000,000 self-identified atheists. Here, you've quoted three atheists. How many atheists do you actualy know? You don't have a statistically significant sample. Leaving aside that you always inject your personal bigotry into discussions about atheists--you don't know enough atheists to offer an intelligent opinion. Not that you ever let a little thing like that stop you.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Great post mate...and a good point...though I was giving MY OPINIONS based upon what they had said themselves!!!...Just a few quick questions, and I'll leave you be...

How many of the 2.3 Billion Christians do you know for a sample size?

How many of the 2.2 Billion Islams do you know for a sample size?

How many of the 1 Billion Hindu's do you know for a sample size?

And lastly, how many of the circa 680 million Buddhists do you know...To have a sample size, to label any one of them above? And call, or differentiate, selfish to more selfishness????????

Is this clear enough??

Like I said, if your gonna call bullshit...then what is good for the goose is good for the gander...mate! Hope my overalls, and straw hat...Don't offend you... Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I am not responding...So don't even bother...

Hopefully it will be another 3 months...Take care! Wink

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I am not responding...So don't even bother...

Hopefully it will be another 3 months...Take care!

I don't even bother with sentanta anymore, clearly he is a troll.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Sorry, one more thing...

Quote:

How many atheists do you actualy know?

How many do I need too? Do I need to know them all?

Quote:

You don't have a statistically significant sample.

What a bullshit answer, really! Then neither do you, to comment about theologies...but it does not stop you!

Quote:

Leaving aside that you always inject your personal bigotry into discussions about atheists--

you do the same **** to theists, no?

Quote:

you don't know enough atheists to offer an intelligent opinion.

how many do I have to know?

How many different theists do you know, and how many of each religion do you know to offer an intelligent opinion?

You do the same exact **** with theists, and you do not even realize it, or somehow rationalize that it is different...

Sorry, but you are a smart guy, history wise...Common sense, and perceptions, intuitions, listening, courtesy, polite, etiquette.. etc....your skull, is very, very, thick indeed...

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Quote:

I don't even bother with sentanta anymore, clearly he is a troll.

Thumbs up!!!

He fights with everyone...And is the rudest person that I have ever even seen on here!!!! And maybe in my whole life!!!!

He told me once he was gonna tear my posts to shreds....And I asked him how? Are you a moderator?? He has yet to answer how he would, and always says, I am no moderator....

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I am not attempting to describe all christians. I am not attempting to describe all Muslims (Islam is the religion, Muslim is the practitioner--you really do sound like a hillbilly). I am not attempting to describe all Hindus. You do try to describe all atheists, even though you know a handful at most, and likely none in person. I describe Buddhism as selfhish and Buddhist as selfish because people suffer and die in their countries while they do nothing for them, and i don't need to know them to know that. Even though i despise organized religion, christianity is more laudable in that respect in that it calls for good works, and many christians do good works. Buddhists, however, are not troubled by their doctrine to do anything for the people around them who suffer. Finally, despite the contempt which Buddhists often show for other religions (and in this case i can only rely on my acquaintance, athough i've known literally hundreds of Buddhists, which is a much better sample size than yours), they are themselves just as superstitious as any other religion.

One can know what a religious doctrine is without ever knowing a practitioner. However, all that one can know about an atheist is that he or she doesn't believe there is a god--there is no doctrine to know, because it's not a belief, but the rejection of a belief. That doesn't stop you, however, from ranting about atheists as though you know what they think, as though you know what all of them think.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Well, i suspect you're a liar, as usual, but one can only hope. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

You were supposed to leave.

If you comment on all atheists, if you speak about all atheists as though you know what they think, then yes, you would need to know them all. There is no atheist doctrine from which to extrapolate what they think. I have every confidence that that will shoot right over your head.

A "theology" is a stated, a published doctrine. When one comments on that, one is not guesssing. Atheists are a diverse group of people. Is you comment on all of them, and don't know all of them, you are the one peddling bullshit.

I'll only comment unfavorably on theists whose hateful bigotry is patent. I not only have nothing to say about all the practitioners of any particular religion, i frequently defend them. Your new asshole buddy here, Krumple, was saying that all christians are evil because of the doctrine they espouse. I defended christians against that stupid and unwarranted attack precisely because it's unwarranted bullshit which is not even based on an understanding of christian doctrine, never mind not knowing all christians. But i'm sure you'll just love Krumple because the silly bitch is bad-mouthing me. Ask Krumple what she thinks of christianity.

Wait, here, i'll save you the trouble:

Quote:

It is all nonsense and that is why people come up with so many rules. If a god actually cared about dancing or doing some activity then it is petty. Just the fact that your mother gets kicked out for getting pregnant just proves that christians really don't care about people. They are the furthest from empathy for humanity. Why anyone would want to follow such a negative world view always baffles me. They teach that every human is wicked by nature and not worthy of anything good. They shun anything that is positive in life if you are trying to enjoy it and expect pain or suffering to be a blessing. It truly is a mental plague.

Source

AND

Quote:

It is so convoluted to think that a god would think it were necessary to kill a being just so it can forgive a trait that was built into the rest of the beings. There is no possible way that this is actually reality. If a god exists and this is it's method that I have to call into question this god's intellect. It seems so irrational to think that this is a method or solution. You honestly think that another being can suffer on your behalf? It is absurdity.

Not only that but why would you respect a god that would cause another to suffer just so it could forgive? You can't get any more wicked than that. Why you can't or refuse to see it as wicked, must call into question that perhaps you are just as wicked minded. That torturing another being for not believing is perfectly justifiable and reasonable to you. It is madness.

Source

That's your new buddy.

To offer an opinion on all christians, i'd have to known them all, and of course, i don't. To offer an opinion on some christians, i only have to know them. To offer opinions on christian doctrine, i only have to have read extensively about that, and i assure you i have.

You need to be talking on your new asshole buddy Krumple about this. She's the goofy bitch who tars all christians with the same contemptuous brush.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Tearing your posts to shreds is simplicity itself. You're just too stupid to see that it has happened. I don't fight with everyone, just nasty-mouthed, hateful bigots like you and your new asshole buddy Krumple.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

You guys don't have any understanding of rude; you're too stupid to comprehend such simple concepts.

You guys run off at the mouth without any clue about fact, evidence, or accuracy of opinion. None.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You guys don't have any understanding of rude; you're too stupid to comprehend such simple concepts.

You guys run off at the mouth without any clue about fact, evidence, or accuracy of opinion. None.

cicerone imposter is also a troll.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

You wrote (Setanta):

I describe Buddhism as selfhish and Buddhist as selfish because people suffer and die in their countries while they do nothing for them...

...Buddhists, however, are not troubled by their doctrine to do anything for the people around them who suffer. Finally, despite the contempt which Buddhists often show for other religions (and in this case i can only rely on my acquaintance, athough i've known literally hundreds of Buddhists, which is a much better sample size than yours), they are themselves just as superstitious as any other religion.

You can of course say this but if you want others to believe you are correct you need to show evidence of these accusations. Otherwise you may be mistaken or just being slanderous.

Example of an Indian Buddhist king Ashoka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
"He attempted to raise the professional ambition of the common man by building universities for study, and water transit and irrigation systems for trade and agriculture. He treated his subjects as equals regardless of their religion, politics and caste. The kingdoms surrounding his, so easily overthrown, were instead made to be well-respected allies." etc...

I have been a Buddhist most of my adult life and the Buddha never taught that if someone could not find food for themselves and someone else had that food and was able to give it to them, that a Buddhist would withhold that food. If the Buddha did not teach this then it follows that the person who withheld the food would not by definition be a follower of the Buddha and his teachings. A Buddhist is a follower of the advice that the Buddha gave in his teachings.

I'm am also not aware that the Buddha taught that other religions should be held in contempt by Buddhists. So it follows that someone who has contempt for another religion is not a follower of the Buddha's teachings.

Unless you can show the Buddha taught, in the way you accuse Buddhists of behaving, then you are either mistaken or you wish to deliberately slander the Buddha and his teachings.

You now need to show evidence that your accusations are true by showing the Buddha taught in this way or those who require more than accusations will ignore them and should still maintain at least an open mind about the Buddha and his teachings because what you have said should be ignored by the wise unless backed up by evidence.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Yes, I'm a troll to people like you to prove you don't know anything! You must hate me greatly. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yes, I'm a troll to people like you to prove you don't know anything! You must hate me greatly. LOL

I don't have any hatred for you cicerone. I have a huge amount of pity for you. There is a difference.

0 Replies

@JoanKhanib,

I've been a Buddhist for 31yrs. So this has given me time to get a good overview of the Buddha's teachings.

So should Atheists favor Buddhism over other faiths? I would answer that if someone recognizes that they suffer and want to find out if the Buddha could help with this, without the need to believe in a god or gods then they should examine what the Buddha taught.

The Buddha taught that we can reduce or remove suffering if we give up thinking, speaking and acting in ways that will result eventually in suffering. If the causes and conditions are present, our past actions of body, speech and mind will ripen as a result. If that result is due to the causes of suffering, then it will bear fruit as suffering. This is just like if you plant a seed and the causes and conditions are present then a shoot will appear.

So the mental experience of happiness and suffering are caused by what we say, do and think. So we can learn to remove our own suffering and understand how to be happier without any need to believe in a god or gods. So this would be useful to someone who wanted to see if there is something that the Buddha has to offer, whilst knowing that the solution is not going to depend on any theist beliefs.

0 Replies

FBM = Former Buddhist Monk. I spent a year in Thailand as a novice monk. Naturally, I've collected the Pali Canon and a scattering of works by modern philosophers of Buddhism (Gombrich, Siderits, etc, who are not Buddhists themselves) and have been studying them for close to a decade now.

A few observations:

Popular Buddhism often contradicts the Buddha's teachings, whether that popular Buddhism is Asian or Western.

The Buddha did not teach reincarnation; he taught rebirth, which is pretty much diametrically opposed to reincarnation. He taught that there is no inherent Self or soul-substance to be reincarnated. What then, is reborn? Conditions, not beings. Current conditions affect future conditions, and the effects of what you do today are the only things that persist over time. No "I" in the equation at all.

Superstitions run rampant throughout Buddhism, but the Buddha didn't do much to quell them. Why? Because, according to the Pali Canon, he didn't see them as a hindrance to attaining the ultimate goal of psychological/existential liberation.

On the other hand, in the Kalama Sutta and elsewhere, he strongly recommended a skeptical approach. That is, don't believe, try it out for yourself so that you will know whether or not this or that idea or practice helps one towards the goal.

You will find no lack of charlatans in Buddhist robes. Just as you will find no lack of them selling used cars, pyramid schemes or political ideologies. That's just an element of human society, and there's nothing magical about putting on Buddhist robes, shaving your head and mumbling in an ancient language.

The Buddha emphasized over and over again that he only taught things related to human discomfort/stress/dissatisfaction (dukkha) and the way to get rid of it. He didn't teach cosmology or metaphysics, though naturally some of his statements can be classified as metaphysical. It's hard to have a normal conversation without saying something based on a metaphysical concept.

Most of the quotes popularly attributed to the Buddha are not found in the Pali Canon. They are witticisms and conundrums made up much later.

Mahayana Buddhism contains a few core elements that contradict what is found in the Pali Canon. Not the least of which is the concept of the "True Self."

The Buddha taught his followers to respect all other religions and not to belittle them. Not because he repected the ideas they held, but because he respected the humans who held them.

Anyway, that was a lot longer than I intended. Sorry. Off my soapbox now. Wink

0 Replies

Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know