this post was submitted on
377 points (72% like it)
609 up votes 232 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,159,534 readers

1,732 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 ›

all 64 comments

[–]eorld 10 points11 points ago

While he certainly has problems, as far as religious leaders go, I'd take the Dalai Lama over the pope any day

[–]NBornKillerCell 15 points16 points ago

If all religious leaders were like this, there would be far fewer religious leaders.

[–]_EX 1 point2 points ago

I think you should see just what else the Dalai lama has to say...

[–]phauna 1 point2 points ago

No sex during the day is fucking bullshit.

[–]a-mused 2 points3 points ago

There isn't enough bling in being a religious leader like the Dali Lama. Just as well, makes it easier to tell the genuine from the con artists.

[–]WRETCHEDBEAST 0 points1 point ago

Um what?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Think he is alluding to the fact that the Pope sits on a gold throne, wearing the richest of silks and gold chains and currently resides in a palace decorated with marble and gold. The Dali Lama, in comparison, lives a life of exile where he can't even return to the temples that hold hi followers. This could be what he alludes to when he says there isn't enough bling in being the Dali Lama.

Of course, this completely ignores the fact the Dali Lama has insane amount of wealth at his disposal and his temples where just as 'blinged out' as the catholic temples... not to mention a range of private palaces are at his disposal, if China hand over control of the country. Being the Dali Lama might might not mean the wealth of the Catholic church, but it does mean you never will have to worry about how to pay for the five star hotel rooms you keep finding yourself in....

[–]a-mused 2 points3 points ago

It means I don't recall the last time I saw a Buddhist televangelist or a scandal where the Dali Lama was getting people to invest in funds he was receiving kickbacks from. Sure, there are some very beautiful Buddhist temples ...but they weren't built on a foundation of guilt, violence, and corruption.

[–]schniepel89xx 2 points3 points ago

To me this sounds more like an arrogant claim that Buddhism is compatible with science (unlike other religions), since as someone pointed out Buddhism should have changed a long time ago if he really meant this the way most people here seem to think he does.

Again, that's just my opinion.

[–]Tr2v 2 points3 points ago

He's still full of shit, even if the shit doesn't smell quite as bad as the other piles.

[–]velocom 25 points26 points ago

Cut me a fucking break. The guy believes that he is the 14th reincarnation of the same dude, and that the universe is populated by a whole fucking pantheon of gods. Not a whole lot of science there.

Lemme tell you something, as someone who has been a Buddhist for most of his life: IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING AS EVERY OTHER RELIGION!

/r/atheism's love affair with Buddhism astounds me. It's like everybody reads the letters Budd---and then their fucking brain shuts down.

[–]brutishbloodgod 4 points5 points ago*

R/atheism's "love affair" with Buddhism probably has something to do with its rational skepticism. Just as we're not willing to accept ridiculous claims without extraordinary evidence, we're not willing to denounce a largely peaceful, rational, philisophical, non-dogmatic, non-theistic way of life because it has religious associations that are not tied to or necessary for its core doctrine. Blanket condemnations based on a superficial understanding are what we're supposed to be working against.

Edit: I'll also add that the DL's beliefs, and those of Tibetan Buddhism in general, while dogmatic, are derived more from the Bön religion of pre-Buddhist Tibetans than from Buddhism itself, and represent only a small fraction of the world's Buddhists.

[–]keepthepace 3 points4 points ago

Find another religious leader that says his religion will change when science says it is wrong and I'll agree that he is not so exceptional.

[–]tashtrac 3 points4 points ago

It's like saying 'if science can prove there is no God, I will change my mind'. Yeah, great, that changes everything...

[–]keepthepace 0 points1 point ago

My proposition is falsifiable and totally reasonable. If Benedict XVI was to say the same thing (is that really an unreasonable proposition ? ) I'll withhold my claim.

[–]tashtrac 0 points1 point ago*

I'm not talking about your claim, I'm talking about Dalai Lama's claim. Most buddhist (and any religious ones) claims are unfalsifiable, so saying 'if they're proven wrong then <something>' is worth jack shit. And if they know this and still say it, they're simply being manipulative.
Btw. some attepts have been made to prove the ability of meditation to change physical world and have failed hard.

[–]keepthepace 0 points1 point ago

Btw. some attepts have been made to prove the ability of meditation to change physical world and have failed hard.

And I don't think that Tibetan buddhism claims (anymore) that meditation is anything more than a mental exercise.

[–]tashtrac 0 points1 point ago

Yes it does. Theravada buddhism certainly does (at least it did about 2 years ago, when I left them).

[–]keepthepace 0 points1 point ago

Where can I learn more about that ? Indeed if the dalai lama still promotes such easily testable falsehood, I'll withold my statement. What exactly do they pretend ?

[–]tashtrac 0 points1 point ago

Well, Dalai Lama is from the Mahayana branch of buddhism, not Theravada. It's the most moderate one, that concentrates on self. 'The dude' of Therevada is called Karmapa. Theravada is the branch where you 'trust your teacher', and gain enlightment through his teachings. The most famous teacher is Lama Ole Nydahl, you may look up interviews with him. I don't know where you can learn about it, I learned most of this during my buddhism years. You may try The Way Things Are by Ole Nydahl.
Generally in Theravada yoy learn by attending lectures by 'traveling teachers'. I've heard stories about ghosts, hells, reincarnation, super powers of lamas (seriously, Karmapa can see through walls and shit) etc. I even heard one teacher using Pascals wager as an explanation of 'why live your life like there's something after death'. They seem like they geniuenly want to stay true to the 'don't accept anything on faith' virtue, but fail miserably by successfuly decieving themselves.

[–]keepthepace 0 points1 point ago

So basically you are criticizing the pope because some protestants are creationists ?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

I wouldn't say it's the exact same, for example many buddhists are atheists. It's less extreme than most religions, especially the abrahamic ones.

But stupid shit like "we'll change our beliefs if you prove us wrong"? Absolutely worthless. You can claim there is a tiny teapot going around the sun, too small to see, and no one could prove you wrong. That doesn't mean there is evidence in the first place for it.

The Dalai Llama's comment ignores burden of proof, and this shouldn't be on the front page of /r/atheism, where people should be able to understand how the burden of proof works.

I can't prove Jesus wasn't the son of god, either. That doesn't lend it credibility, it just puts it on the same table as any one of millions of ridiculous ideas.

[–]kodozoku 6 points7 points ago

No, it's like you don't know jack shit about Buddhism. There are atheist sects of Buddhism. It is more than a religion, it is a philosophy, although I admit the gray zone between those two aspects of what is commonly known in the west as Buddhism has some hokey and crappy parts.

Thanks for exposing your bias, btw; it's nice to know that as someone who was raised Buddhist, you can't separate the religious indoctrination you received as a child from the beleifs of others.

[–]tashtrac 1 point2 points ago

While there ARE atheist buddhist sects, the majority is more like religion than atheism, unfortunately (at least that's what I got from being a buddhist and learning about buddhism for a couple of years).

[–]Negro_Napoleon -4 points-3 points ago*

Bingo.

I couldn't agree more.

It seems /r/atheism forgets all of this. I wish someone would post that infographic again debunking all of buddhism.

Religious moderates...are STILL a problem. Believing SOME illogical shit as opposed to ALL the illogical shit doesn't change the problem.

On top of that, his quote is invalidated the moment it left his lips. Buddhism ALREADY needs to be rearranged based on science that is already proven and accepted.

[–]TrojanCover -5 points-4 points ago

Well, at least Buddist tend to be more tolerate of others and have beliefs that are more practical to ordinary people. Plus, meditation can be pretty relaxing.

Also, I don't agree with the buddist doctrine of denying yourself the human experience.

[–]brutishbloodgod 5 points6 points ago

Buddhism does not advocate denial of the human experience. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Buddha attempted a life of asceticism and decided that it was not a viable path to happiness. The "middle way," a life neither ascetic nor overindulgent, is one of the core doctrines of Buddhism.

[–]Negro_Napoleon -4 points-3 points ago

Mediation is just deep breathing and reflection. Its not that freaking complicated. Buddhism doesn't have a monopoly on deep breaths and emptying your thoughts. Deep breathing increases gas (I think CO2) concentration in the body thus leading to that sense of "aloof-ness"... btw. There is a physiological mediator for this "phenomenon"

On top of that, being more "practical" doesn't substantiate it as being any more valid, as a religion.

Its still bullshit.

[–]TrojanCover 2 points3 points ago

I didn't say it wasn't man, calm down. We're all friends here (I think). I was merely rationalizing /r/atheism's love affair with Buddism.

[–]brutishbloodgod 2 points3 points ago

There are several forms of meditation, and they all encompass more than just deep breathing and reflection. Much of Buddhist meditation is focused on unbroken concentration, something which is extremely difficult for people when you're just sitting and breathing. There is extensive scientific research proving its health benefits of meditation. Rather than examining it objectively, you're displaying a clear bias against it based on its religious affiliations (which are not in any way tied to the practice itself). Isn't that sort of uninformed, blanket condemnation what we're supposed to be working against?

[–]Negro_Napoleon -2 points-1 points ago

I'm not against it.

I'm saying that the "techniques" of deep introspection, while difficult to achieve, are not INTRINSIC to buddhism nor are they unique to that religion.

Any sort of spiritual or external influence claimed assumed or claimed by buddhism on the topic of mediation or any other ritual, other than the literal passage of air through the lungs or mental endurance...is BS in my eyes.

[–]brutishbloodgod 2 points3 points ago

Here's the general idea: everything that is happening in the universe is happening right now, at this very moment. Stuff in the past already happened, stuff in the future hasn't happened yet. Now is where it's at, but we are, by and large, not mentally present to experience it. Meditation refines the brain's ability to concentrate, which helps us to experience life more in the present, where it's actually happening. Buddhists believe that this is a more fulfilling way to live one's life, and this is backed by scientific examinations of meditation practice. Additionally, the Buddha did not ask that the benefits of meditation be taken on faith. He insisted that the methodology he advocated be actually experienced, and rejected if the practitioner finds his claims innaccurate.

That's really all there is to it. On top of that is a rigorous philisophical examination of the psychological, non-spiritual causes of and solutions to suffering, but everything else, all the dogmatic and spiritual BS, is extraneous, and often derived more from the religions that Buddhism supplanted than from Buddhism itself.

[–]CPTSaltyDog 1 point2 points ago

The science behind it was founded by the practices brought about by religion. A bunch of Buddhist sat around and decided to do this first; not a bunch of scientists. Then we came about with science and explained it. The practices were unique to the religion at its founding core, however now it belongs to not only Buddhist but all people in the human experience to enjoy. However now rather than a mere spiritual explanation for why it works we also have science.

For me I found meditation through Martial arts and eastern practices which had spiritual influences however now I understand the science behind them. So they had been Intrinsic to the religion of for some people still are.

[–]Negro_Napoleon -2 points-1 points ago

Then we came about with science and explained it. The practices were unique to the religion at its founding core, however now it belongs to not only Buddhist but all people in the human experience to enjoy

OK...so whats your point? You're proving what I've said. Buddhism gets revered for what? Discovering somethings thats universally true?

If that was the case, since muslims crafted our modern design of number arabic numbers AND algebra, I guess that means the Islamic version of the Abrahamic god, Allah, exists.

[–]CPTSaltyDog 1 point2 points ago

Muslim didn't create algebra for religion your missing the point... Buddhists created meditation for ascension into their religious beliefs. it wasn't until later that scientific foundations were made to prove its benefits for all of us who aren't religious. Whats your point other than vast over generalization with obvious bias towards religious backgrounds and roots? Its not revering it just appreciating something we learned through its practice by careful study with scientific backing and observation.

[–]wakeupwill -1 points0 points ago

Of course it is. When you boil down most religions to their core principles they all tend to come out as "Don't be a dick."

Organized religions tend to get clogged with petty bullshit caused by individuals moral beliefs, and the core message is lost.

[–]homedoggieo 5 points6 points ago

The Dalai Lama is one chill ass moffucka. I saw a video once of an Australian newscaster telling him the joke,

"The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop, says, 'Make me one with everything.' "

The humor was totally lost in translation, but he laughed anyway.

[–]brutishbloodgod 3 points4 points ago

Oh, for fuck's sake. The occasional repost is one thing, but this was on the front page generating an extensive discussion not five days ago.

[–]dinnie 1 point2 points ago

One thing I prefer about Buddhism over others like Christianity is that I don't have Buddhists coming to my door and trying to force their beliefs down my throat. Therefore, I don't really have a bone to pick with them.

Context: I am an atheist.

[–]thatoneatheistguy 1 point2 points ago

He should wait for science to prove him right first. For example, I have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my backyard. You should believe me until I am disproven, right? NO.

[–]learnebonics 1 point2 points ago

I'm really fucking tired of this. There are plenty of religious people who say this, and what's the result? Even if you prove that something is wrong with their beliefs they won't accept the evidence as proof. It's as simple as that. They'll just keep denying that you proved it to them.

[–]gotrootdude 1 point2 points ago

He's still waiting for science to disprove reincarnation.

[–]Mr_Philosopher 2 points3 points ago

He doesn't believe the idea of reincarnation is what people think it is. More along the lines of energy flowing and forming.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

How in the hell does a psuedo-scientific idea like that have 6 upvotes in r/atheism?

[–]SkullyKitt 0 points1 point ago

I am constantly frustrated by the commonly held beliefs about what reincarnation is and how it works - it's so much more, yet so much simpler.

[–]gotrootdude 0 points1 point ago

Sophism. If you get it confusing enough, maybe some idiots will believe it.

[–]SkullyKitt 0 points1 point ago

~_o Not sure if you're saying that the common perception of reincarnation is sophistic, or if what I'm saying is sophism, but it's how I feel. I suppose you probably mean the latter.

The way I understand it is probably already existent somewhere on the netterwebs, probably with a really simple, pretty, picture and some text over the image, but I don't feel like looking for it. Basically, it's this:

There is no 'you' but for the one right now. The you that came out of your mother, wet and pink and tiny, is completely gone. If I asked you to physically show me that you, they don't exist. The you that read "There is no 'you'" no longer exists either. The 'you' buried in the ground, or cremated or whatever else similarly doesn't exist. It hasn't happened yet. In that way, the past and future are completely inaccessible. We witness evidence of one, and can expect the other based on that evidence. In seconds, there is an infinite number of slices in time where you exist, then re-exist, different - only in tiny changes in your cells, the connections between synapses, and so on. But different. When you die, you'll be completely gone but for your molecules, which will slowly change and disperse over time. The building blocks that make you up will remain and be altered, the same way they were originally present to fit into your shape.

There is no transfer of 'spirit' or 'awareness' - only ideas, views and beliefs. If we are the only sentient life in reality, when we're gone, maybe that'll be it. But the rest of it will still be here without us. Maybe the process will repeat, and some other matter will coalesce into an intelligent enough shape to be able to question itself the way we do.

I believe you 'die' and are 'reborn' constantly, along with every single thing around you. It's just that some do it more noticeably than others, the difference between change over milliseconds or a million years.

I believe that the realization that this reality and this lifetime is all we have, applied to a view of every living creature around oneself, means a greater empathy for pain, a greater appreciation of pleasure, and an understanding of the connection shared by the extremely special and relatively short-lived phenomena of humanity that makes every life suddenly precious simply for the reason that it exists.

Gods, demons, spirits, karma, dharma - it's unnecessary. We exist, we change, we cease to exist, but the reality in which it happens remains constantly. Just one totality viewing itself from multiple view points.

That is what I believe reincarnation is.

[–]BigMadDrongo 1 point2 points ago

Be careful about judging someone on a short quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYEOSCIOnrs

[–]Mr_Philosopher 2 points3 points ago

Be careful about judging someone based on a criticism of them.

From the YT response. "Pen & Teller's claims fall in three categories: 1. Asserting Pre-1950 Tibet as a Theocratic Serfdom, 2.Assertions about the Dalai Lama, 3. Asserting that Tibet would return to Theocracy.

Claim 1) Search Wikipedia, "Serfdom in Tibet Controversy" for info.

Claim 3) Simply incorrect in 2012, HHDL removed his own political role."

I'm not saying he's "pure" but there's more to what he's about than either side asserts.

[–]brutishbloodgod 3 points4 points ago

Penn and Teller are mouthpieces of the libertarian Cato institute, which was founded by one of the Koch brothers and opposes American support of Tibet. Nothing these guys say should be taken at face value.

[–]BigMadDrongo 1 point2 points ago

I appreciate the info, just goes to show that nothing can replace doing your own research! I go for an approach of never trusting anyone myself :[

[–]VivaLaHaHa 1 point2 points ago

Agreed. Also check out this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80

[–]RawrXD 0 points1 point ago

I really don't get it.. If science proves some parts of Buddhism are wrong, then what's to say the whole of Buddhism is not flawed then? There really is no more credibility to any belief or group or anything if they have to "change with the times". "Changing with the times" = Choosing what you believe from that religion because of new discoveries. What the hell is the point of having religion at all then? I really cannot understand how people don't realize this.. Anyone with any common sense or thinking power can.

[–]plaird 0 points1 point ago

I'd take anything the Dali Lama says with a grain of salt he'll say just about anything if it helps his cause.

[–]JustAAverageAlex 0 points1 point ago

don't forget Buddhism is no more spiritual than any other religon so if that quote is true than a lot of Buddhism will have to change ( reincarnation, nirvana, etc.)

[–]hercs95 0 points1 point ago

He was also a slave owner

[–]orniver 0 points1 point ago

Shush! Uncle Sam says you are not supposed to know that.

[–]greatatdrinking 0 points1 point ago

Ooh yeah. I really wish more religious leaders were charismatic and would backpedal there beliefs so as to seem reasonable to those that follow rather than admit fault and fallacy.

That's why I love the Catholic Church. They continue to concede to science on issues like the Earth being round and you know, not being the center of the universe because cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

The Lama had slaves!! Gunga la gunga fucking slaves!!! Saying something cool doesn't make you a great leader. Humility, diplomacy, and understanding basic human rights makes a great leader.

[–]SecularSailor80 -1 points0 points ago

Like the story of Buddha's birth? Said to be born from a gash in his mother's side?

[–]Entershikari -2 points-1 points ago

What about the scientific test made on Budhism practicant who meditate daily which show that they use more part of their brain than other people.

[–]UnholyGeezer 1 point2 points ago

Feel free to link to it.

[–]linux_add 0 points1 point ago

[citation needed]