this post was submitted on
1,635 points (54% like it)
10,073 up votes 8,438 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,159,655 readers

1,172 users here now


Help Atheist Organizations!

The Secular Student Alliance, Camp Quest, and Foundation Beyond Belief were all nominated for the Chase Community Giving program, which awards grants based on the votes of the public. Everyone gets 2 votes on Facebook, plus an additional one if they share a CCG page. The links for them are:

SSA | CQ | FBB

Voting runs from September 6-19


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]noly101 539 points540 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 348 points349 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The best part about this is that it's actually unavoidable. There's no way you can NOT do that.

Buddha was making a much more subtle point.


Edit for elaboration:

A lot of yoga teachers may try to get you to control your own mind, mainly to prove that you cannot do it. "A fool who persists in his folly will become wise," and so they speed up the folly.

...and...

Buddhism works very much in this way. Buddha said "If you suffer, you suffer because of desire, and your desires are either unattainable or always disappointed. So cut out desire." So those disciples went away and they stamped on desire, jumped on desires, cut the throat of desire and threw out desire. When they came back, Buddha said, "But you are still desiring not to desire." They wondered how to get rid of that desire. When you see that all of this is nonsense, there naturally comes over you a quietness. Seeing that you cannot control your own mind, you realize there is no controller. What you took to be the thinker of the thoughts is just one of the thoughts. What you took to be the feeler of the feelings is just one of the feelings. What you took to be the experiencer of experience is just part of the experience.

both quotes taken from Alan Watts "myth and religion" transcripts. If you're interested, I suggest listening to the audio recordings. His voice is like an English, genteel Morgan Freeman.

Edit #2 - Here's another quote which helps elaborate on why making a fool persist in his folly will make him wise.

[–]Grand_Imperator 134 points135 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your username is one of those times where I'm just going to forget that it is associated with such a great post.

[–]on_the_redpill 46 points47 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I run into IFUCKINGLOVEMETH's posts pretty often, and I'm always surprised someone with that name generally posts intelligently.

[–]goal2004 68 points69 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm sure that all the meth allows him to read like 4 different books at the same time and never go to sleep.

[–]ExplainsNovelties 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Says the guy on the red pill..

[–]billthecat0105 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oddly fitting.

[–]phidelta355 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What you took to be the meth addict is just an addict...who happens to be a genius.

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm actually neither a meth addict nor a genius. Go figure.

[–]i_toss_salad 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I do in fact toss salad.

[–]tallbus1 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My friend "PussyStank" impresses people a lot too, it's pretty funny to watch

[–]hcnye 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Comments with usernames like these are what make reddit interesting.

[–]GoatseMcShitbungle 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Never judge a book by its cover, as they say. ;)

[–]Muzilos 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Whatever you say GoatseMcShitbungle...

[–]HITLERS_NUTSACK 7 points8 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Personally, I think outrageous usernames are karma whoring at its worst.

[–]Le-Illiterature 54 points55 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love the image of a meth-head twitching and speed-elaborating on how the Buddha said we should all cut out desire. (Alan Watts's voice is pretty great)

[–]Teaelle 23 points24 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I made a Alan Watts song a few weeks ago, taking clips from his "Nothingness" segment. He is inspiring!

[–]HillParkBakery 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That was beautiful.

[–]wrecklace 7 points8 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like this! Sounds kind of like Blue Sky Black Death.

[–]TheGoodOttoKatz 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I enjoyed that. Good job.

[–]isoprovolone 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Lovely!

[–]Puumaa 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for this, thoroughly enjoyed it.

[–]Epershand 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]jrriddle 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This was beautiful, man. Keep 'em coming. You have some serious talent and you should NEVER let talent like this go to waste.

[–]Teaelle 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Wow thank you!! It's nice to get comments like this ever once in a while :D

[–]jrriddle 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No problem, brother :) Seriously though, that's an awesome song and I'd be more than happy to listen to other music that you've created. I also plan on sharing this song to everyone I know. If you make any more songs and would like someone to listen to them, I'm your guy! Just add me as a friend, pm me your new song, and I'll jam out to every second of it. I'll even help share them if you'd like! Hope you have a great day, Teaelle!

Edit: Also have you tagged as "Makes Awesome Music."

[–]lost-one 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I just listened to this 3 times in a row. Please make more.

[–]TheJackalope231 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Congratulations on your awesome skills. Thank you much for that.

[–]on_the_redpill 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is why the Scumbag Brain memes are interesting. -Scumbag brain: complains about brain, is brain. This showcases the disconnect we have, needing to believe the experiencer is separate from the experience.

[–]vacatedsiamang 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This really clarified something for me. Thank you.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I may be missing something here, but can you explain to me how it logically follows that because getting rid of desire is impossible, you therefore cannot control your own mind? I mean, surely that just means that you cannot control an aspect of your mind. It strikes me as being the same as saying, "Put this bowling ball in your pocket. You can't? Clearly you cannot control the bowling ball." Of course, people who bowl would disagree with you.

More importantly, how does that flow on to the inference that therefore the thinker of the thoughts is one of the thoughts and the feeler of feelings is just one of the feelings? As I said, I may be missing something, but that seems like a really extreme non-sequitur.

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 25 points26 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your analogy doesn't work.

"You" are the bowling ball. And "you" are also the pocket. Now try to remove the bowling ball from the pocket.

If you're still confused or in disagreement, answer this: Who are "you"? Define what you mean when you say "I". By making you persist in this folly, you will come to understand what I mean.


In the meantime, here is another relevant quote:

So what will you do with a person who is convinced that the earth is flat? There is no way of reasoning with him. If it is for some reason important that he discover that the earth is round, you have got to play a game or trick on him. You tell him, “Great. The earth is flat. Let’s go and look over the edge; wouldn’t that be fun? Of course, if we are going to look over the edge of the earth, we must be very careful that we do not go around in circles or we will never get to the edge. So we must go along consistently westward, along a certain line of latitude. Then we will come to the edge of the earth.” In other words, in order to convince a flat-earther that the world is round, you have to make him act consistently on his own proposition by making him go consistently westward in search of the edge of the world. When at last, by going consistently westward, he comes back to the place where he started, he will have been convinced that the earth is at least cylindrical … What you must do is make him persist in his folly. That is the whole method of Zen: to make people become consistent, perfect egotists, and so explode the illusion of the separate ego.
—Alan Watts; Buddhism the Religion of No-Religion

[–]hippain 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I appreciate this post because I also felt there was an extreme non-sequitur. But I also wanted to comment that, "getting rid of desire" is NOT "impossible", according to that dude's quote. He says that when the absurdity of "desiring to not desire" is realized, that desire goes away.

At least, that's how I read it. Which is why I didn't understand why he goes on to say that controlling the mind is impossible, because he made it seem very achievable.

The rest of the quote has merit. There may or may not be something called identity. I think neuroscience is out on that. At least, a "consciousness" or an "ego." Chances are these things do not exist. It is important that one at least contemplate/challenge the concept of a personal consciousness. Is it somehow different than any other feeling or perception?

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To your first paragraph: I agree with everything you said.

The issue, however, isn't about the state of "having no desire", but about the process of getting rid of desire. It can be possible to have no desire, but it is not possible to control that process in any conventional sense of the word control.

If you build a robot to perform a specific task or to operate within certain parameters, can it be said that the robot controls itself? What about if the parameters were very broad, as is the case with the human mind? At what point are parameters sufficiently broad to say that something controls itself?

[–]plutoinvirgo 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the idea here is that you cannot control a bowling ball when it is in your pocket. As long as there is desire, there is only so much "control" you have of the mind, just as there is only so much control you can have of a bowling ball in your pocket. Many people bowl as if they have a bowling ball in their pocket -- very little control. But what about the expert bowler? Not so different from any professional athlete -- they have trained over a long period of time to learn how to use the bowling ball to achieve their desired ends -- a strike. This is similar to people and their minds -- most have little to no control. But just like the bowler, many Buddhists will train and meditate over a long period of time to learn how to "control" their desires to achieve a desired "end" -- a calming of the "monkey mind." At some point, with the bowler and with the meditator, all of this training and practice leads to a different relationship and understanding of the ball and the mind. Athletes might call it getting in the "zone" -- they are no longer consciously trying to control every situation -- they are an integral part of the flow of the situation and their actions come naturally, not contrived. They just seem to automatically know what to do with the ball to make the strike, but they are not really even all that invested in the strike anymore, they are just in the moment. They have achieved a union with the ball and with the immediate situation that normally they do not have in the rest of their life. In the rest of their life, they are much like most of us -- very little control of the mind -- because they believe, like most of us, that we are somehow a separate entity from our mind. In Buddhism, this duality is an illusion because everything is believed to be interdependent. So as the bowler gets in the "zone" during a game, a meditator, too, after many years of practice and training may find themselves in the "zone" -- in the place of understanding that they are not an unchanging, concrete entity separate from their mind or from anything else. They have come to the same understanding about the mind as the bowler has come to about the ball. This understanding cannot be forced, it cannot be controlled, that is the paradox. At a certain point, the more one tries to control anything, the farther from the goal they are, because the goal is to shed the illusion that we can have control. When that illusion is gone, then, in that moment, the false separation disappears. The thinker then becomes the thought, the feeler is the feeling, and the bowler is the ball.

Edit: changed "ever-changing" to "unchanging"

[–]Epershand 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

! Alan Watts reference !

[–]introspeck 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ben Franklin said "Blessed is he that expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed." I used to think it was just another Poor Richard "work hard, get ahead" aphorism. But then I started thinking of it as a Zen saying and I liked it much better.

[–]IceLegger 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This has inspired me to look in more about Buddhism. Even though I am atheist, I would like to education my self more.

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Many (if not most) Buddhists are atheists. Buddhism is more of a way of thinking (such as the scientific method is a way of thinking), not a set of things you must believe.

Many Buddhists are atheists who believe strongly in the power of science and reason.

I have something like 200 hours of Alan Watts audio lectures, and I've listened to a substantial amount of it. He gives a really interesting perspective on eastern philosophy. Very intelligent and open minded.

I consider him to be the Carl Sagan of Zen.

[–]wiskey_tango_foxtrot 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is now my favorite comment on an /r/atheism post, and is also my favorite comment content/username combo.

[–]mynewret 11 points12 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's from the Kalama Sutta, and it's not word for word, it's a paraphrase of the english translation of the original Pali. You have to consider the context in which it was said.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

As you read this, you'll notice that "gee the Buddha repeats himself a lot". You have to understand that this was an oral tradition, so the repetition serves to strengthen the memory of the person re-telling the story. It was written down as it was recited, thus it is repetitive. Just like songs have a refrain, so did this oral history.

[–][deleted] 77 points78 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"The problem with quotes from the Buddha on the internet is that they're pretty much unverifiable" -- The Buddha

[–]ChrisHernandez 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -The Buddha

[–]takennickname 29 points30 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"This pretzel is making me thirsty." -The Buddha

[–]OmegaArcadia 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Fuck that." -The Buddha

[–]smokerocksnig 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"pffffffffffffffffft" - The Buddha, passing gas under the Bodhi tree

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted" - The Buddha

[–]AerialAmphibian 30 points31 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I never said that, certainly not in whatever this language is."

- Siddhārtha Gautama

[–]Dinosaur_VS_Unicorn 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Lets go pay some hookers to slap our junk around" -- The Buddha

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That wasn't Buddha, that was I Can't Believe It's Not Buddha.

[–]darkmage20 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can't believe no one has I_cant_believe_its_not_buddha or something similar as a username.

[–]xanderempire 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Yo why you always gotta hold the blunt and tell a story, hurry up and pass that shit. That ain't a peace pipe and this ain't a goddamn pow wow" - The Buddah

[–]Vassago81 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"This breakfast taste funny" -- Alan Parson

[–]kragmoor 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

people that make up "deep" quotes for me on the internet really rustle my jimmies --- the dolly llama

[–]CFPeni 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"I have seen some horrible things." -- Your Dolly

[–]anonsters 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And you'll find that many contemporary scholars of Buddhism think this was introduced into the canon of suttas in order to justify the proliferation of suttas claiming to be the word of the Buddha himself. It's basically a savings-clause that may have been introduced (depending on who you believe in the academic debate) either by those innovating (early flavors of Indian Mahayana) or by those who wanted to consolidate a canon that they regarded as descended directly from the Buddha—so that it becomes a criterion for rejecting some of the proliferating proto-Mahayana sutras.

[–]metallicirony 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That might be the case and it would fit perfectly into the Buddhist context. The sutras, like all other holy texts, have been through so much transcription and translation that it would be unwise to accept them lock stock and barrel without common sense, and what I like about Buddhism is how readily it acknowledges this reality.

Given that it might be impossible to distinguish which sutras were said by the Buddha and which were made up by charlatans (and I would argue that it is irrelevant anyway - its not WHO said it, but WHAT he said that matters) and that exactly is the reason for this clause.

[–]anonsters 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except that it does matter who said it. After all, they virtually all claim to be spoken by Buddha himself (with the occasional one here and there spoken by Ananda, say, but all the Ananda suttas I'm familiar with include some explicit acknowledgement by the Buddha that what Ananda said was correct). So one has to be careful not to elide the Buddha right out of Buddhism.

As for the what, that's up for grabs, too. Just compare the religious-ethical horizons of, say, the Lotus or Heart Sutras on the one hand and, say, the Karaniyametta Sutta on the other hand. Then compare the Buddha's analysis of mindfulness in, say, the Anapanasati or Satipatthana Suttas with the kind of analysis you get in the Abhidhamma Pitaka of the Pali Canon. Buddhism, like every other religion or religious practice on the planet, is incredibly pluralistic in its content.

By the way, there's some really interesting work done by scholars on the Pali Canon analyzing the relationships between place, speaker, time of year, and content. There are apparently some discernible relationships, possibly reflecting an oral stage of transmission (so that if the location is Deer Park, certain phrases or themes are likely to be repeated, whereas if the sutta is introduced in a different location, or with a different vignette (monks coming to Buddha who is meditating in such and such a place), that's the key for inserting (orally) certain memorized content, and so on). English scholars of Buddhism, in particular, are the more likely culprits in trying to unearth strata of canonical transmission (people like Rupert Gethin).

[–]metallicirony 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

(My version of: "So I have heard" is "I might be wrong, if so please enlighten me")

My thoughts are that the sutras are best taken as a seed of thought, and tested via meditation, contemplation, and life experience, thus it doesn't really matter who said it. It could be the Buddha who said that "life is impermanent", or maybe the fella sitting right beside you, or some random stranger you overheard, but its up to you to think about its veracity, test it out, experience it, before accepting it. Science gives us a particularly good framework for working this out. Would it be considered right Buddhism to literally accept concepts such as reincarnation as described by the Sutras in the light of modern scientific knowledge? Would it make a difference of the description of reincarnation was described by the Buddha or anyone else? To me the answer is no. If the Buddha talked about reincarnation, and modern science disproves it(I'm not saying it has already, I think it just shows no evidence of the event, but in this case I mean if it did definitively disprove it) then this clause should be rejected, even if it is said by the Buddha. I think this is true Buddhism. And if later on, even more advanced science proves that reincarnation exists after all, then it should be believed again. I think this would be in line with Buddhist teaching.

[–]anonsters 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you're right to some degree, at least in the first part of your assessment. It's like what the early-mid 20th-century phenomenologists (Husserl, Heidegger, etc.) said about their own work: basically, "Hey, you need to go step by step through the phenomenological method and confirm what we're saying for yourselves in order to see it's true; we can't really give you discursive arguments for the truth of our claims; but if you do go through the method, you'll find that our phenomenological analysis is accurate." Thus inviting you to go through it yourself.

Where I disagree is in your attempt to neutralize certain doctrines of Buddhism that don't quite fit in with our contemporary scientific picture. It would take a longer and more detailed comment to set out my case, but I really think Buddhism only makes sense if you accept reincarnation quite literally. Otherwise there is no sense to the notion of a wheel of suffering that has to be broken by spending a lifetime's effort in meditation and so on. If the end of this life is the end to it all for me, the cycle of suffering is naturally broken. There's no need to do anything prescribed by Buddhism. Buddhism becomes a harmless relic for people to toy with, not the intense life of dis-attachment and compassion the Buddha called for.

[–]MikeCharlieUniform 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's the especially brilliant bit - it literally doesn't matter who said it. It's good advice, and should stand on it's own merits.

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It gets even deeper than that:

How do you know if something stands on its own merits?

You decide it does.

The whole point is that you are the source of authority.

[–]CerealCraft 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Buddha preaches confirmation bias.

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually not. If you see my response to this thread, you'll see that he's actually not in support of it, he's demonstrating bias is unavoidable.

[–]plartoo 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To read the whole quotes of Buddha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

[–]pickled_heretic 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

too bad our own reason and common sense were informed by things that we read and heard growing up.

[–]nigrochinkspic 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Which is a fancy way of saying trust your instincts.

[–]NotoriousADD 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you see the Buddha on the path, kill him.

[–]Murrabbit 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Let's not make the mistake of thinking that Buddhism is a particularly skeptical, scientific, or dogma-free religion, though. It's still a faith-based framework which relies entirely on appeals to the supernatural.

Science already trumps buddhism simply from the perspective of not assuming supernatural elements without any basis, or making a hypothesis, testing it and then reaching a conclusion. these are not things that Buddhism lives up to, and so the Dahli Lama's commitment to ensuring Buddhism squares with actual knowledge is shallow at best.

[–]darkNergy 42 points43 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Honest question: which parts of Buddhism are capable of being proved wrong?

[–]JodoKaast 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think this quote was when someone asked him about reincarnation. He said if reincarnation was ever scientifically proven to be wrong (somehow), Buddhism would have to get rid of reincarnation as one of its central tenets.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It was Carl Sagan:

Skeptic Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what would he do if a fundamental tenet of his religion (reincarnation) were definitively disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered; "if science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation... but it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation." (from wiki)

[–]robotrebellion 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But that's an unfalsifiable hypothesis...

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If anyone proved that falsifiability, evidence, testing and repeatability to be the wrong ways to discover the nature of the universe, then science would have to get rid of them as central tenents.

Science itself, therefore, is an unfalsifiable method.

Problem?

[–]pickled_heretic 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

of course not. the scientific method is a philosophical construct, not a scientific theory. was there ever a problem?

[–]Saerain 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So, yeah, I think the question stands.

[–]dja0794 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's the beauty of science. The science we have today would have seemed completely impossible to anyone a thousand years ago. Just because it seems that we will never be able to answer a question, doesn't mean that we won't be able to eventually. Maybe one day we will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what happens after you die, maybe not.

The point is that we don't know and we will keep searching until we find it or we all die. That's how science works.

[–]Youre_Always_Wrong 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Their evidence for reincarnation is they go around Tibet with a pile of objects, showing them to kids until one picks out the right ones. Then they say this is because it is the Dalai Lama remembering his propertah from his past life.

In other news, you can find someone who can win a coin toss 10 times in a row if you start with 1024 people.

[–]wrapped-in-silver 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My guess is anything to do with how the mind works. Buddhists study their own minds but neuroscientists have the final say.

[–]spacitron 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes I'm wondering the same. It's a bit like Christians asking that science proves God wrong. But I guess with the Dalai Lama being exotic and all it sounds cool when he says it.

[–]Nisas 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Came here to say this. The Dalai Lama isn't "doing it right". The burden of proof is on him to show that reincarnation and karma are true. Same as any other superstitious claim. He's "doing it better than some", but not "right".

It's not our job to prove him wrong. The history of religion is a search for a claim that cannot be disproved.

[–]Hotelforcorndogs 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, but it's a completely passive, non-intrusive claim, held down with only the thin social view of being fundamental (but that would lead to a much more in depth discussion of the way of Buddhist thought), kept within the confines of the religion itself, which, unlike many other religions, keeps it from being an interference with the world around it.

[–]joesb 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The burden of proof is on him to show that reincarnation and karma are true.

Actually the burden of proof/disproof is on the one who actively want to proof/disproof the idea.

[–]yourewinner111111 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Many people will cling to their beliefs despite strong evidence contradicting them.

[–]MikeCharlieUniform 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All of it. None of it.

Which Buddhism, BTW? It's not as if there is some kind of universal dogma shared by all branches. Obviously, there are some beliefs held by some branches/individuals that are not falsifiable, but my Buddhism (liberal atheist) is definitely informed by the state of science.

[–]y2kerick 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

came here to ask the same thing. My fundie friend once told me "can you scientifically prove that there is no God?" I as a competent reddit atheist replied "can you prove there isn't a teapot in space?"

[–]Iwentthatway 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The difference is in the fact that in Christianity, there is a final word of God (typically the Bible). In Buddhism, there is no finality. It constantly shifts and adjusts. In other words, Buddhists aren't really saying prove me wrong I dare you like a Christian being antagonistic/defensive would. What's being said is these are the beliefs right now; they will be revised/there will be a need to revise when there is new evidence, which is essentially what science espouses also.

The point of disagreement may be in the initial conditions/facts (e.g. the supernatural), but it is a perfectly reasonable statement. I think some of the confusion arises from the fact that Buddhism is an eastern philosophy/religion while Reddit is by and large Western therefore based on logocentric/Plantonic mindsets (e.g. either/or mindsets of binaries).

[–]ohreallyoudontsay 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Science can purify religion from error and superstition" - Pope John Paul II

[–]plartoo 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have to warn that we (as a whole of Reddit) shouldn't mistakenly think Dalai Lama represents the entire Buddihsm. His is just a sect/branch of Buddhism. There are other (very different) ones.

[–]wzuur 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I believe he most likely did not believe science would ever prove reincarnation to be wrong. science really is just in an infant stage... now, i await my stream of downvotes from those who are believers in science, yet not true scientists themselves. (If you don't believe we have anything unknown to discover, you really are an impediment to science itself)

[–]I_read_a_lot 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is from "the universe in a single atom". Definitely a good read I recommend.

[–]drainos 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think most of the Buddhists here need to study what is considered right view, and those quoting the Kalama Sutta need to read it in context.

[–]brahzilla 35 points36 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is the linchpin of the fundamental failings of r/atheism and most internet atheists in general.

Most have either directly rejected fundamentalist protestantism, or were raised in an irreligious or simply passively religious household where when they decided to develop their own views on religion they got them from the very loud and public arguments against fundamentalist protestantism.

Simply put, this whole science vs religion thing is a false battle that only comes up with the aforementioned sub-denomination, things like evolution and the big bang are accepted by the major churches (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox).

When atheists generally pick only the battles they can win they become a limited echo-chamber and do not learn how to debate the wider issues, this is why Dawkins spends most of his time debating fundamentalists (yes I do know he doesn't exclusively do this and that he recently debated the head of the Anglican church) and comes off as a hero to the cause of atheism when in fact the man is an outstanding biologist but an average theologian.

[–]Veylis 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The burden of proof is on Buddhism since it is making claims, not science.

-Science

[–]anonymousalterego 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The burden of proof is only a burden if proving Buddhism incorrect is a desire of science.

Only things that hold science back are desirable for science to eliminate.

I think that Buddhism poses no threat to science and is not a detriment to scientific progress.

Therefore, it is no burden at all. And because Buddhism (well, most or all current Lamas) sees no threat from science, I don't think either one will actively work to prove the other wrong.

[–]vaggydelight 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How does this shit make it to the top, yet Reddit is so filled with anti-Christians? The burden of proof is for the Bhuddist to prove, just like it is for the Christian to prove. "You can't prove karma doesn't exist, therefore it does!" Eat a dick, Dalai Lama.

[–]iamriot 36 points37 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dawkins says, and I agree, "Buddhism is more lifetsyle than a religion". Definitely awesome of his holiness to say though.

[–]MrCronkite 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So is judaism. In fact, I take judaism all the way in terms of lifestyle rather than religion. I go to synagogue, keep kosher, read from the torah, but do I believe that shit? Hell. No.

[–]tattybojan9les 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I find that pretty interesting, why do you do it? Because of family or cultural identity or what?

[–]MrCronkite 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is cultural identity and family mostly. It is really a great culture, I find jews are often much warmer people, particularly to other jews. If I'm alone in a foreign country, in a city I have never been in, and know no one who lives there, I can place a call and be sitting down to eat dinner in a jewish families house within an hour. Strangers from Israel have ended up eating dinner with us, and sleeping in their house, because they needed somewhere to stay and we were on The Associated's (a large jewish charity) list. As you may know, there are lots of jews in high places, and we tend to help each other out, sort of like a free mason thing I guess. We get more opportunities than we would otherwise have as a result. Last week, my parents invited Adam Riess, a nobel prize winning astrophysicist to a shabat dinner, and he accepted. If we hadn't been jewish, we wouldn't have been able to invite him. It allows us to interact with people we don't know as if we know them. I only follow commandments that I find value in following, if I come across one I see as silly, I ignore it.

[–]Edifice_Complex 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

DAMNIT! ALL THOSE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE RIGHT!

[–]hippain 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If we hadn't been jewish, we wouldn't have been able to invite him.

I'll invite any goddamn person I want to any ceremony I want.

[–]JohnFrum 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I find jews are often much warmer people

Challenge excepted. If you're ever in Vancouver Wa send me a pm and I will feed you within an hour of me getting the message. No joke.

I'm not a jew but I'm warm. That sounds wierd but I think you know what I mean.

[–]Trepan 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

nothing holy about him, he's just a man.

[–]kalimashookdeday 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What? So Dawkins decides what is a religion and what is not because it may suit his general stance and argument against it? Buddhism, by definition, is a religion - despite how Dawkins wants to change it's meaning to suit his view.

[–]I_RACE_CATS 32 points33 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think he's trying to be the final word on what is or isn't a religion, it's just the way he interprets Buddhism.

[–]diemockingbirddie 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Buddhism, or the rather the main aspect of Buddhism, is its empirical philosophy on the nature of personal identity, and the attempt to better understand and circumvent the negative universal aspects of the nature of self through meditation. Most Buddhists understand that their myths are just that, myths, but hold them very dear as metaphorical teachings (fictions we can learn from). It is very possible to "practice" Buddhism in an entirely secular manner.

[–]Daemonra 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All you did is denied Dawkin's explanation without providing your own explanation in which why Buddhism is a religion more than it is a lifestyle.

[–]iamriot 4 points5 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree, it definitely has it's dogmas and supernatural garbage stories as any other religion, I do however think most people, in the "western" world, who would practice Buddhism, seem to use it's principles and leave the stories in the realms of fiction.

edit: I wasn't implying that Dawkins is the deciding factor on what is or is not a religion. I just tend to agree with him on the point he made.

[–]Scarjaka 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Dawkins isn't saying that because of what he thinks it must not be a religion. He's just saying that to him it's more of a lifestyle. Aren't people allowed their opinions?

[–]FuriousJ 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In America I'd say so. I find something close to 90% of Buddhists I know are hippies who claim to be free of desire while driving a Range Rover...but i'm from Boulder, CO, so that might be the reason for that.

[–]FissureKing 35 points36 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not precisely. It is better to not believe in things without evidence in the first place. Other than that I think he is right. Buddhism still believes in the supernatural, though admittedly without a god.

[–]wonderfuldog 77 points78 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Buddhism still believes in the supernatural, though admittedly without a god.

Belief in the supernatural is common in Buddhism, but it's optional.

It's something like saying "Christians eat meat." Yes, most of them do. But you can be vegetarian and Christian.

You can drop belief in the supernatural and still be a "good Buddhist."

[–]My_Toothbrush 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Out of curiosity, can you also drop belief in the reincarnation cycle and still be a doctrinal Buddhist (of any sect)?

[–]nailimixam 21 points22 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Zen Buddhist, except that is by definition not doctrinal.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I thought the whole point of Zen buddhism is that you achieve enlightenment in order to stop this ongoing reincarnation business.

[–]IFUCKINGLOVEMETH 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No more than the whole point of science is to stop people believing in God.

It's sort of completely unrelated in a hard way to explain. There is a misuse of cause and effect. And an implication of some intent that doesn't exist.

[–]philosarapter 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Buddhist here, reincarnation is a Hindu belief, the buddhist concept is rebirth. While the Hindus believe in a true essence or 'soul' that is reincarnated into a new body, Buddhists dismiss the idea of any sort of 'true self' or 'essence' to a person. This is the doctrine of Anatta (no-self). There is nothing essential to your being to be transfered, as "you" are a result of interdependent arising. (That is "you" are countless tiny working parts coming together). However, the totality of existence that composes you will, after death, dissolve and become of something else, thus there exists rebirth. Part of "you" may become a flower petal, or a worm or a bird or a raindrop or even a part of another person.

I understand the doctrine of rebirth as 'nature recycles'.

Obviously there exist different viewpoints on the matter.

[–]wonderfuldog 23 points24 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

(A) A lot of Westerners like to regard reincarnation as a metaphor for different states of mind under changing circumstances.

(B) But even talking about just dropping the idea of reincarnation altogether, I'd say that one can do so and still be a good Buddhist.

My take is that the fundamental Buddhist ideas are the "Three Marks of Existence", and reincarnation is not mentioned there.

- A quick summary -

- http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/l50ik/some_atheists_are_perfectly_fine_in_associating/c2pw736 -

[–]wrapped-in-silver 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Seems to me that reincarnation and karma were used as metaphors that people at the time and place would understand. Reincarnation is compared to lighting one candle with another. It's just causality... you live on in your impact.

Such subtlety makes for crappy memes so people create new memes that are easier to understand. The notion of being reincarnated as a dog is easy to understand.

[–]jigenx 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As stated in other areas, really to be Buddhist all that's really necessary is that you understand, agree and attempt to live by the four noble truths. I can tell you that sadly soldiercrabs layout is only things that are shared and USED to be considered true many monks and teachers of this faith/philosophy tell you that you should take the stories as real or just a story. Its up to you. Best Buddha quote went something to the effect of, "don't trust anything, whether you hear it from me or anyone, unless it rings true to your own common sense.

TL;DR you don't have to believe in rebirth to be Buddhist, no. Coming from Vajrayana Buddhist

[–]unforgyvn 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I mean, technically, you will "come back" as something else when your body decomposes and it's material is reintegrated back into nature.

[–]andrew69er 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I do. I'm a Theravada Buddhist and I drop the whole afterlife thing.

[–]tharju 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm a Theravada Buddhist and I drop the whole afterlife thing.

same here. Still consider myself a good Buddhist.

[–]honkeyplease 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There are definitely Buddhists who take the concept of reincarnation metaphorically, not literally (that is, in an "every moment you're reborn" sort of way). I don't have any idea what fraction of the world's Buddhists interpret it this way, however.

[–]Ent_Guevera 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Zen.

[–]FissureKing 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agreed

[–]nihilation 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

my wife is buddhist (from thailand) and doesn't believe in supernatural shit

[–]andrew69er 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it depends on the type of Buddhism. Tibetan then yes it's very supernatural. Theravada not so much. Buddhism and Hinduism are the only religions that can admit there may be no god. Buddhism claims no god and Hinduism embraces the possibilities that God may not exist.

[–]JawreCr6 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

NOTE: This is TRUE, but SOME sects of buddhism do believe in the supernatural still, there are a lot of buddhists who are turning away from the supernatural in favor of the rational.

[–]JonclaudvandamImfine 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Only certain types of Buddhism believe in supernatural...

[–]rhubarbfestival 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I went to see the Dalai Lama talk last year. He had some very intelligent things to say about embracing secularization.

[–]Melnorme 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Did he say anything about the outmoded Divine Right of Kings? Whoops!

[–]Firekracker 100 points101 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, technically science has already proved some beliefs of Buddhism wrong, as soldiercrabs pointed out not too long ago.

Plus, the Dalai Lama isn't as kind as you might think!

[–]21echoes 31 points32 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that description of samsara is highly incomplete and inaccurate, sorry. karma and reincarnation are not one being moving between realms at time of death-- it is a millisecond-to-millisecond lesson of "you reap what you sow".

it is understandable that one might think talk of the samsara in some sutras is meant literally, but a complete studying of the buddhist scriptures reveals them as tools for discussing patterns of consciousness that exist on scales above and below our own, and points to aspire to in one's meditation. core to buddhist doctrine is that there is no self-- that a being is a flowing sequence of experiences which exists solely as a pattern of energy moving through a system. once this core nature of what it means to be is internalized, it becomes interesting to theorize about patterns of energy and consciousness instantiated in systems vastly different from our own. thus, the various realms-- literally, different planes of conscious reality.

[–]roughstonerollin 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To understand any of buddhist philosophy, one must first understand what buddhists mean by "emptiness." Also, not all buddhists agree that the three realms exist ontologically. Finally, the Dalai Lama has already ceded his position of political power, and has stated several times that he aspires for Tibet to be a democracy, with democratically elected leaders.

[–]happyknownothing 117 points118 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you are being a bit disingenuous here. Science has not proved that some of Buddhism is wrong. The claims are completely untestable by science. All that the scientific method is capable of doing is look for causal relationships in the physical world. People assume that the physical world is all there is, but that is a leap of faith and it will probably always be untestable by science. It is perfectly reasonable for you to dismiss as nonsense, but when you claim that science has disproved it you are ignorant or being deliberately deceitful.

[–]Mystery_Hours 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I pretty much agree with this but I have to wonder if the point would be received as well by Reddit if a Christian was making it.

[–]happyknownothing 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unfortunately people do tend to judge arguments more on the person making it than the worthiness of the argument.

[–]Saerain 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

People assume that the physical world is all there is, but that is a leap of faith

What?

Faith is belief without evidence. A leap of faith would be to add something apart from ‘the physical world’. Burden of proof and all that.

[–]Big_Baby_Jesus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The claims are completely untestable by science.

I assure you that there is no subterranean hell full of souls being eternally tortured. We have very impressive geological tools these days and geologists definitely would have noticed something like that.

I actually respect Buddhist thought very much, which makes it unique among religions for me. But I'm definitely an Atheist/scientist who incorporates little chunks of Buddhist wisdom into my life.

[–]hipsterdysplasia 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And thus, you place your religion in the same bin as Rumplestiltskin.

[–]happyknownothing 34 points35 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't actually have a religion. The world is one big mystery to me.

[–]ologies 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How do you feel about magnets?

[–]happyknownothing 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't particularly have a view on magnets if I'm honest.

[–]awesomeideas 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well I don't trust 'em. Would innocent objects flee?

[–]s1thl0rd 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Dentarthurdent42 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Oo0o8o0oO 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I know exactly how they fucking work.

[–]bmk2k 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Speaking out against r/atheism is admitting you're a fundie religious nut

[–]happyknownothing 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Shit, they've blown my cover so easily :)

[–]Edifice_Complex 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You say this like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with Rumpelstiltskin?

[–]anjodenunca 5 points6 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You're basically trying to accrue Buddhism into something solid so that you can dismiss it. I don't agree with the Dalai Lama either, and think that most of the adherents of Buddhism tag on things that are nonsense and not worth your consideration, however...

Buddhism isn't like Christianity, you don't have to listen to every part of it, there's no danger in taking things as allegory or questioning particular parts of canon. If taken to it's dramatic extreme, misunderstanding what enlightenment actually is or getting a fact wrong because of sloppy translation or cultural assimilation would at worse mean that you're reincarnated again, assuming there's a real way to actually achieve enlightenment/prajna/satori/contentedness.

I don't believe in reincarnation, anyway. It's obviously not scientifically testable and there's a strong trend in opinion within Buddhism that thinks that metaphysical ponderances like that don't really fucking matter, and I respect that.

If you're someone who appreciates particular parts of Buddhist philosophy and enjoys the tangible potentials of things like meditation for things like stress management, you could reasonably call yourself a Buddhist. If you think that even a marginal factor of your enjoyment of life is determined by your perspective, some of these ideas are really useful.

The analogy that I'm not a Buddhist because I respect and follow some of the ideas and not others doesn't work, and the idea that you control the definition of something as fluid and widespread as modern Buddhism comes off as pretty obnoxious. It's like trying to tell a Christian that he's not a Christian because he doesn't believe that God is triune.

You could definitely hold me accountable if I believed in something like karma or reincarnation or the different realms of reality as fact and tried to scoff at the assertions of other religions, but I don't, and I know a lot of Buddhists that don't.

For more information along these lines, I recommend this

I realize that the statements in the cartoon are someone else's, but I assume your reposting of it indicates that you agree.

[–]originaluip 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They should make a Godwin's law regarding the mentioning of Pen and Teller on /r/atheism Dali threads.

[–]davidduckface 16 points17 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's only one thing about this

that quote "this doesn't make you a buddhist anymore than loving thy neighbor makes you a christian" actually doesn't apply to buddhism. You are not a buddhist because you believe in the cycle of samsara or any of the the other dogma associated with vajrayana or the different schools, your a buddhist because you agree with the principles of ending suffering as taught by the buddha

Dalai LLama "It does not matter whether or not buddha was a man of real origin or a story, the lesson is the same

You're argument is invalid.

inb4 fifty thousand downvotes from atheist circlejerker

[–]RobotBuddha 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You know, I actually agree with every point you made. But this

inb4 fifty thousand downvotes from atheist circlejerker

made me want to downvote you. Just saying that if you get downvoted, don't assume it's because people don't like what you're saying. It might just be because you're coming off as very antagonistic and angry.

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Personally I see Buddhism as one of the few religions that actually makes its members better people. The philosophy taught by Buddhism can be appreciated by all walks of life, and if you can't see that then you really do need to raise yourself above the veil of ignorance and hatred that you call your atheism.

Now of course there are the spiritual aspects of Buddhism, but like any rational person, we can see these as philosophical anecdotes, and apply them to our lives. I think if people accepted this, more people would accept Buddhism.

[–]Scrawly 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree, to an extent. It's worth noting that just about every religion aims to make its members better people, for a given value of "better".

[–]jettrscga 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My assumption is that HowItsDone is referring to the kind of better where your better doesn't fuck with anyone else's better, as some religions seem to enjoy doing. At least in practice it seems to involve more personal bettering than trying to improve everyone around you except yourself.

[–]Saerain 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]Brody3K 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree if I had to choose a religion, Buddhism would be the obvious choice, be a good person and you will get good. MAKES SENSE TO ME. No bullshit about a deity telling you what to do and not do.

[–]MilkTaoist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The problem isn't so much in the religions themselves, it's in the people practicing them. Christianity stresses kindness, even to your enemies, but too many people use the Bible as an excuse to be hateful bigots.

[–]Jamotron 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"But you have to admit, it'd be pretty hard to disprove reincarnation" That's what he said when he met with Carl Sagan.

[–]Trepan 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Good thing we don't have to disprove it, he should be the one trying to prove it.

[–]Nfestid 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is nearly impossible to prove anything like a religion "wrong" I mean, we can offer proof that it is unlikely, or we can offer the fact that there is no proof that it is true, but we can never prove it to be "wrong." I mean even Unicorns, No one has ever seen one, or any evidence of one, however, they have not been PROVEN to not exist.

[–]heimdal77 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

for some reading up on Buddhism http://www.buddhanet.net/

[–]PasDeDeux 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not to buck the trend, but this is exactly like saying "If science can prove Jesus/God to be wrong/not exist, then we'll have to change."

It still leaves all of the spiritual BS untouched, as it is not falsifiable.

[–]Metalhead62 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Christianity should get in on that.

[–]JimmyMcShiv 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read the universe in a single atom. It's great.

[–]darkalex8991 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thats why buddism is the only religion I actually respect. They don't do good things because they will go to a "heaven", they do it because its their principles. Its like to do good things for no reward.

[–]278225mw 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My favorite thing about Buddhism is that a lot of their practices have a large, convincing body of psychological work that show how beneficial they are (mindfulness, meditation, etc).

[–]tehchief117 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Watch Kundun. The reason that he would say this is that if scientific evidence were proven and brought forth, it would be dismissed for some bs reason like irrelevancy etc.

[–]erg0S4m 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

-- Says the 14th reincarnation of the original Dalai Lama, chosen to be head of government because as a young child he "recognised" some of the previous lama's belongings. Can you feel the science?

[–]pedroischainsawed 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

how bullshit is that Bullshit episode about the Dalai Lama?

[–]divsky 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This further solidifies my beliefs that most atheists on reddit aren't atheists as much as they are agnostics that really hate Christianity.

[–]troyvrogers 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He stole this from Saint Thomas Acquinas.

[–]firebadmattgood 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I actually think he's doing it wrong, as it seems he's got the burden of proof precisely backwards. Anyone making an assertion has the responsibility of proving it correct, there is no burden on the skeptic to disprove anything.

[–]DovahKaaz 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Absolutely no problem with Buddhists. Most of them are peaceful, exactly what their religion preaches!

[–]RobairRobair 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"His Holiness". Nope, still doing it wrong.

[–]murphs33 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...versus Kent Hovind: "If science contradicts the Bible, then science is wrong".

[–]MamaSaidSo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Something quite similar is said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I doubt a screenshot of that would get any upvotes here though.

[–]CryoftheBanshee 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read "The Universe in a Single Atom." The Dalai Lama attempts to understand and correlate physics with Buddhism.

[–]ohshitbombz0r 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Faith in humanity, temporarily restored.

[–]sasseriansection 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This passage soured my view of him a bit. It read just similar to other interactions of science and religion.

From Best Buddhist Writing 2006, a couple paragraphs from an article by the Dalai Lama, talking about a conversation with "eminent neuroscientists at an American medical school".

I said to one of the scientists: "It seems very evident that due to changes in the chemical processes of the brain, many of our subjective experiences like perception and sensation occur. Can one envision the reversal of this casual process? Can one postulate that pure thought itself could affect a change in chemical processes of the brain? I was asking whether, conceptually at least, we could allow the possibility of both upward and downward causation

The scientist's response was quite surprising. he said that since all mental states arise from physical states, it is not possible for downward causation to occur. Although, out of politeness at the time, I thought then and still think that there is as yet no scientific basis for such a categorical claim. The view that all mental processes are necessarily physical processes is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific fact. I feel that, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, it is critical that we allow the question to remain open, and not conflate our assumptions with empirical fact.

[–]skeemo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

not bad coming from someone who's people were servants of the monks.....he was the leader of a theocratic govt.....

[–]wingedpegasus 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I see a lot of comments implying that science is not able to explain many things, and while that may be true at this moment, it is not to say that it will always be true.

Lo and behold, friends; Science is the pursuit of the understanding of all that is, was and ever will be. Its methods are not strict and non-adapting, but change all the time based on what we know is best to further our truthful knowledge of this wonderful and mysterious life.

Science is advancement of our very existence, affecting us as a race, planet, galaxy and even universe. To say that something is unable to be explained by science is to say that we just aren't that far yet.

For a more prominent effect, read this in the Dalai Lama's voice: Don't assume that which appears impossible will always be impossible, to do so undermines your very means for bettering yourself, and such, for living. Humans aren't as helpless as many seem to think.

Have a wonderful day, Reddit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In all fairness though, Buddhists are not theists

[–]TheAngryBubble 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Very powerful

[–]SonOfSatan 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well he doesn't stick to his word. There was a case in which they had a dead body that was not decomposing, it was in the right conditions and it was perfectly explicable by science, yet he chose to believe it was magic, and that his spirit had simply stayed in his body, and that this would otherwise be impossible.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's important to understand that some "religions" (e.g. Buddhism) do not require you to believe some specific thing regardless of your experiences. Some "religions", including some forms of Christianity, value finding truth wherever you can find it.

[–]johnvandivier 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Just shows how much of a fake religion Buddhism and Hinduism are!

[–]TheMostArcaneFox 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This makes me so happy I want to scream.

[–]Hypersapien 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There was a Christian minister (don't remember his name) back in the 1800s, I think, who said something to the effect of "If there seems to be some contradiction between science and the bible, the fault must lie in our interpretation of the bible."

[–]NGeX 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And this is why I love and always will love the Dalai Lama. And this is why I think he is the ONLY religious leader in the world that deserves his title.

[–]JawreCr6 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

and why i identify with buddhism more than anything else.

also because of:

"Don't blindly believe what I say. Don't believe me because others convince you of my words. Don't believe anything you see, read, or hear from others, whether of authority, religious teachers or texts. Don't rely on logic alone, nor speculation. Don't infer or be deceived by appearances."

-Shakyamuni Buddha

[–]cormega 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm getting more and more fascinated by Buddhism.

[–]jigenx 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would make a suggestion to you then, talk with Buddhists. The philosophy was taught to people to make them better. Everything after that is just extra, and there is a lot of it. It is strongly taught to read sutras and interpret them yourself, rather than listen to others. BUT what you will get from others is exactly that a wide verity of ideas and concepts. I am also always willing to talk about anything regarding my school as well.

[–]Annex1 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai is an absolute hypocrite and fraud, and I don't understand why r/atheism is so accepting of this figure.

Hitchens pretty much summed it up: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/qvirx/hitchens_on_the_dalai_llama_to_end_it_once_and/

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is true. When he ran Tibet it was a pretty brutal place.

[–]Fullerer 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Scumbag Dalai Lama

Claims to be amenable to science

Continues to believe in reincarnation, karma, and other nonsense