this post was submitted on
1,245 points (62% like it)
3,206 up votes 1,961 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,159,575 readers

1,571 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
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

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 ›

1244
1245

This is why Buddhism will avoid the wrath of r/atheism. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by sahuxley

top 200 commentsshow all 355
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]hessbrewing 7 points8 points ago

Plus reddit totally believes in karma.

[–]MoshMuth 0 points1 point ago

heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyoooooooooooooooooo

[–]Caffeine_Warrior 0 points1 point ago

To the top!

[–]Twentyfourth 9 points10 points ago

"The wrath of r/atheism"... it's shit like this that makes me fucking embarrassed to be an atheist.

[–]ikinone 53 points54 points ago

They avoid the wrath of r/atheism because there are buddhists who are assholes, but the religion itself does not really promote or justify assholery.

[–]Mrhiddenlotus 11 points12 points ago

It's whole purpose is to not be an asshole.

[–]cryingblackman 7 points8 points ago

Because if you are it'll bite you in the ass.

[–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

Why do you need a religion to tell you that?

load more comments (11 replies)

    [–]robreim 6 points7 points ago

    The Koran states that if any verse of the Koran is found to be incorrect then the whole book is worthless. But that just leads its advocates to proclaim the book is perfect and to make shitty excuses for the wrong parts.

    You need to do more than just promise intellectual honesty to score points. You need to actually follow through with it too. Point me at a central tenet of Buddhism which has been discarded by the Dalai Lama on the grounds of counter-evidence, then I'll be impressed.

    [–]Daemonicus 6 points7 points ago

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIRmpQbebQk

    [–]DavidNatan 2 points3 points ago

    I love the way he laughs when he says he no longer believes in the myths about cosmology and geography, after having spoken with astronomers and other scientists.

    [–]Mrhiddenlotus -1 points0 points ago

    Thats because there isn't anything that contradicts. Never has. I don't think science has ever proven that being a bad person is a good thing, nor that it ever will.

    [–]flipcoder 2 points3 points ago

    wat

    [–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

    It's amazing to me that Buddhists can assure me that Buddhism is totally cool with a scientific world view, and then when you ask them to say what their beliefs even are or what is entailed by them, you get fluffy nonsense that isn't even in the same plane of description as science, and how great it is that the definition of a lot of Buddhist notions are "personal".

    [–]LucifersCounsel 1 point2 points ago

    L. Ron Hubbard's "dogma" is ridiculous bullshit too. But if you sound convincing when you say it...

    Buddhist Monks learn how to create platitudes. By this I mean they learn how to say things that sound profound until you actually think about them.

    [–]ninjamunk 12 points13 points ago

    Have anybody seen the Penn & Teller "Bullshit" episode called "Holier than thou"?

    They have a bone to pick with the Lama.. AND it features The Hitch..

    [–]theShiftlessest 2 points3 points ago

    God I miss Hitch. It's been too long since I've had a glass of JW Black in memory.

    I try go out and do that every couple months and write blasphemous things on my napkins.

    [–]BuiltThenBurnt 1 point2 points ago

    The entire segment on the dalai lama is pure speculation with the exception of when they discuss receiving government aid.

    And no honest person can possibly give credence to their cherry picking of quotes regarding non-violence. Especially when you consider the tenents of buddhism do not explicitly forbid acts of violence with out further cherry picking.

    [–]RedactedDude 0 points1 point ago

    But isn't the central tenet of P&T for people to think for themselves, and not believe anything that anyone tells them, especially P&T themselves? I've seen their act in Vegas, and they constantly remind you that they are paid to lie to you for your own entertainment.

    [–]ninjamunk 0 points1 point ago

    It is good point, but the other issues discussed in the show are definitely not lies, e. g. Hitchens on mother Theresa. So I doubt that the lama issue is fabricated.

    [–]RedactedDude 0 points1 point ago

    I'm not saying it's fabricated, or even incorrect at all. I'm just warning against treating P&T as a yardstick for "absolute truth".

    [–]flipcoder 9 points10 points ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_fallacy

    [–]Nisas 3 points4 points ago

    Our religion will have to change if someone can falsify our unfalsifiable claims.

    I guess I should just be happy this guy is willing to back down in the face of proven science, but we should not praise him for this statement. Sahuxley chose well in his title. This will keep buddhism from harsh criticism, but only because we have bigger targets to go after.

    [–]MauledByPorcupines 40 points41 points ago

    Already posted earlier, and my comment remains the same: this is a guy who was scooped up while a young child and appointed the leader of his religion because he was deemed to be the "reincarnation" of the previous Dalai Lama. This they know because they followed "the signs" and had him play with the previous Dalai Lama's toys and he "remembered" them from his past life. Sounds scientific to me.

    [–]rasputine 71 points72 points ago

    As far as things religions do to children, I'd say "making them your leader, giving them education, morality and kindness" is a damn sight better than "rape altar boys" or "marry children and rape them" that christian and muslim deep-enders tend towards.

    [–]MauledByPorcupines 20 points21 points ago

    The point isn't whether Christianity and Islam have committed more general crimes during their histories than Buddhism (which they have). The point is that this post basically says that you're supposed to change your religious beliefs if science explicitly disproves them.

    That sounds great, but the irony is that the guy making the quote is only relevant because of a crazy pseudoscientific crackpot theory involving reincarnation and so on. If I'm to take the Dalai Lama's word at face value, then Tibetan Buddhists believe this, I assume, because science hasn't ever explicitly "disproven" it. And science most likely never will explicitly disprove it, because it's probably unfalsifiable.

    TL;DR, Russell's teapot for Buddhists

    [–]rasputine 8 points9 points ago

    I understand that it's unfalsifiable, I simply don't think that baseless beliefs that don't contradict science or known/knowable facts are important.

    I wouldn't have a problem with christians if they believed as the Dalai Lama spoke. I don't have an issue with doctrine that says "think your shit through". The tibetan demons don't tell the Lamas to mutilate children's' genitals, stone women to death, execute gays or slaughter non-believers, so arguing against their existence is rather low on my list of things to give two shits about.

    [–]MauledByPorcupines -5 points-4 points ago

    Sure, and I wouldn't have a problem with Christians in that case either. But this is a post specifically about rationality, scientific reasoning, and Buddhism, written by a guy who only ended up in a position of relevance because of irrational, unscientific reasons. If instead this were a post about how Buddhism's managed to largely avoid doing the sort of shit other religions have busied their time with, such as the sort you mention above, and not a post about Tibetan Buddhism supposedly embracing science, then I wouldn't have raised the point.

    EDIT: clarity

    [–]rasputine 5 points6 points ago

    written by a guy who's only relevant because of irrational, unscientific reasons.

    This is true of 99% of the people you've ever listened to. The reasons in this particular case are a little stranger than usual, but tell me that any nation on the planet is led by someone chosen for rational, scientific reasons and I will laugh in your face.

    [–]MauledByPorcupines -4 points-3 points ago

    From Wikipedia

    "A search party was sent to locate the new incarnation when the boy who was to become the 14th was about two years old.[9] It is said that, amongst other omens, the head of the embalmed body of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, at first facing south-east, had mysteriously turned to face the northeast—indicating the direction in which his successor would be found. The Regent, Reting Rinpoche, shortly afterwards had a vision at the sacred lake of Lhamo La-tso indicating Amdo as the region to search—specifically a one-story house with distinctive guttering and tiling. After extensive searching, the Thondup house, with its features resembling those in Reting's vision, was finally found. Thondup was presented with various relics, including toys, some of which had belonged to the 13th Dalai Lama and some of which had not. It was reported that he had correctly identified all the items owned by the previous Dalai Lama, exclaiming, "That's mine! That's mine!"[10]"

    Yes, I think that democracy, for all its flaws, is perhaps a tad more rational than that.

    [–]rasputine 6 points7 points ago

    Popularity contests and pissing matches are about as rational a choice for deciding the leaders of nations as moistened bints lobbing scimitars at knights.

    [–]MauledByPorcupines -4 points-3 points ago

    I'm not claiming democracy is perfect, but I guarantee you that if we replaced democracy all over the world with some bullshit ritual that appointed people more or less at random and from birth, it'd be even worse.

    [–]boxwood 0 points1 point ago

    Think a bit more objectively. Democracy is just as much of a bull ritual that appoints people more or less at random (although not from birth) anyways.

    It's all culture. And you're just more bias for one because you're a part of it.

    load more comments (1 reply)

      [–]spartaninspace 0 points1 point ago

      That's creepy as fuck.

      load more comments (8 replies)

        [–]dhoushi 3 points4 points ago

        While I can understand the selection process being unscientific, and some irony in this quote. It also bears mentioning that for such a random selection that he turned out to be a really impressive choice. There are many factors that go into a person and some of them are random genetics. Given nature versus nurture and the combination it plays in making a person I find it interesting the kind of man he has become.

        Seems to me for an unscientific method they couldn't have made a better choice.

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 2 points3 points ago

        Agreed. Much respect to him.

        [–]scissorhand26 0 points1 point ago

        In a sense they are probably making their belief true regarding his reincarnated nature. They look for a child with the same tendencies as the character they believe in, then raise the child under the pretense he is that person. To me it just seems like a very good idea draped in mysticism. If you could get a concept like this through to the American people maybe they'd pay enough towards education for once.

        [–]Mortis_Nuntis 3 points4 points ago

        Silly, he's that Avatar, you have to start young.

        [–]DaSeraph 11 points12 points ago

        You're ignoring the magnificent point then - it's amazing that such a rational person can be raised in such an environment.

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 1 point2 points ago

        I respect the Dalai Lama a lot and like many of his views, but this has always been a weird sticking point for me. For instance,

        from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_lama#Future_of_the_position

        "In the mid-1970s, Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, told a Polish newspaper that he thought he would be the last Dalai Lama. In a later interview published in the English language press he stated, "The Dalai Lama office was an institution created to benefit others. It is possible that it will soon have outlived its usefulness."[41] These statements caused a furor amongst Tibetans in India. Many could not believe that such an option could even be considered. It was further felt that it was not the Dalai Lama's decision to reincarnate. Rather, they felt that since the Dalai Lama is a national institution it was up to the people of Tibet to decide whether the Dalai Lama should reincarnate.[42]"

        And stuff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15th_Dalai_Lama

        And this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11th_Panchen_Lama

        The 11th Panchen Lama reincarnation controversy and whether or not they're supposed to use the "golden urn" and so on, and the two people competing for who's the "true" reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, and the political prisoners China's taken over it and so on, are about as out there as it gets.

        [–]spartaninspace 2 points3 points ago

        Well, what if the lama finally is good enough for nirvana? They're a bit fucked at that point aren't they?

        [–]scissorhand26 1 point2 points ago

        I figured it was more like the Buddha and he'd chosen to stay back.

        [–]dontviolate 4 points5 points ago

        I've never understood how this works either. I thought the end realization or idea of Buddhism is that separation is an illusion and we are really all one, just lost and playing a game. So any person existing as an individual is really just an idea or an illusion, because we are really all one, or nothing. Seems backwards to me to then go onto say that one person could be reincarnated over and over. I thought the whole point was that you as an ego don't really exist, and you may as well call it being reincarnated when any other being is born after you. But maybe that's just a specific sect of Buddhism that believes that.

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 1 point2 points ago

        My take on that is that the true idea of Buddhism is whatever the person reading the texts interprets it as, unfortunately. For instance, look at the stuff going on with China vs Tibet to see Buddhism at its worst (with China unfortunately taking the rule of the aggressor). On the other hand, a far better portrayal is given when you see quotes from the Buddha that appear to place emphasis on direct empirical observation and which discourage authoritative dogma.

        So Buddhism isn't monolithic; there are lots and lots and lots and lots of takes on Buddhism. It still has the same problems that any other religion has, which is that it's not always clear what it's saying, because it's thousands and thousands of years old. It's not written down in absolutely precise terms which transmit knowledge as clearly as possible from one person to another. In short, it isn't modern science, where everything is supposed to be as clear as possible and without making any unnecessary additional claims.

        But I think it's still overall a great philosophy for any rationalist to want to subscribe to, as long as you understand the above and are willing to deal with it and not accept teachings that you don't think actually make sense. For instance, the Zen school's all about that; Zen masters have been known to answer questions like "what happens when you die?" with "I don't know, I'm not dead."

        [–]Go0s3 1 point2 points ago

        Exactly. Disproving Buddhism is identically difficult to disproving any other religion. Misplaced contention from the uploader.

        Have you ever been mauled by something other than porcupines?

        [–]EscherTheLizard 1 point2 points ago

        With a large enough sample size of children today, I bet you could find at least one with all the same signs that the current Dalai Lama displayed as a child. Simple probability theory delegitimizes the practice of discovering the Dalai Lama. I suppose Buddhism must change by ceasing to exist.

        [–]Joe_12265 0 points1 point ago

        He meant the little stuff. Clearly the big picture on religion in general is off limits.

        [–]PorterR91 1 point2 points ago

        So what you're saying is that he's the avatar.

        [–]OGBrownboy 1 point2 points ago

        Reminds me of Avatar the Last Airbender, I might have to look into Buddhism >.>

        [–]LORDJEW_VAN_CUNTFUCK 0 points1 point ago

        Hasn't he said himself that he does not believe he is really the reincarnation?

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 1 point2 points ago

        If so, I wasn't aware of that. Do you have a source?

        [–]LORDJEW_VAN_CUNTFUCK 1 point2 points ago

        I tried looking it up and read some quotes about how he's going to decide, when he's 90, whether the reincarnation cycle will continue. So it definitely seems like I was mistaken.

        [–]monkeysphere_of_one 0 points1 point ago

        This is Tibetan Buddhism, which is basically syncretism of Buddhism and the native Tibetan animistic Bön religion.

        Instead of pulling a Christianity or Islam and doing a religious Walmart number on the place by killing off the local forms, Buddhism was used as a new way of interpreting the old native beliefs.

        [–]sahuxley[S] 0 points1 point ago

        I know, it's not perfect, but it's enough for me at least to focus my criticism of religion on less reasonable faiths.

        [–]GrooveCombo 0 points1 point ago

        and yet that kid who is chosen to be their leader is one of the smartest and nicest human beings on the planet, a force for good, not evil.

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 0 points1 point ago

        I don't remember saying he was a force for evil. I do remember saying that his religion isn't any different in that it also contains weird pseudoscientific bullshit.

        [–]tauschemo -1 points0 points ago

        That doesn't change the fact that the philosophy works on a principle of adapting or dropping doctrines that don't work for the individual or aren't accepted anymore.

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 4 points5 points ago

        But this is like saying "we should believe in this silly belief about reincarnation, which is the only reason the Dalai Lama was arbitrarily deemed important at all to begin with, until science explicitly disproves it."

        [–]EpsilonRose 0 points1 point ago

        Not really. Even if his position as Dalai Lama is moderately nonsensical that doesn't mean he can't say intelligent things. That particular belief is fairly common in Buddhist quotes and it's not exactly a bad principle to follow.

        [–]MauledByPorcupines 0 points1 point ago

        Of course he can say intelligent things, but I still don't think this quote hits the nail on the head, and it's even more ironic coming from the Dalai Lama. It's better than "fuck science, the Earth is 6,000 years old," but the only reason this guy even became a religious leader is because of the Tibetan Buddhist equivalent of Russell's teapot.

        Of course, to be fair, I don't really know for certain that there's no reincarnation. But I'm also not willing to just assume there is and, say, get in a well-publicized political struggle over it, such as the current situation with Tibet vs China over the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, in which there are political prisoners and such. (Look it up if you don't know about it, it's an interesting story)

        There's another post I saw somewhere on here where the Buddha himself was saying something more to the effect of not believing anything until you actually see it empirically for yourself, which I thought was much more rational.

        load more comments (17 replies)

          [–]Guck_Mal 12 points13 points ago

          The Dalai Lama only started down the path of reason, logic and tolerance once the Chinese took away his despotic kingdom. By todays standards he was a tyrannical despot when he ruled his kingdom.

          It is easy to be all about peace, harmony and reason - when you no longer have to prove that by actions.

          [–]RedactedDude 1 point2 points ago

          By todays standards he was a tyrannical despot when he ruled his kingdom.

          You are aware that he was made the Dalai Lama at the age of 15, and fled Tibet at the age of 24, right? I think you are holding him accountable for the acts of his predecessors.

          Do you hold Obama accountable for Bush's invasion of Iraq?

          [–]FuckinJabberwocky 12 points13 points ago

          Buddhism is probably the most benevolent religion I know of, if their beliefs are illogical, I don't care because they aren't imposing it on anyone.

          [–]IronDickNick 9 points10 points ago

          exactly. its an internal faith, unlike fucking baptist muthafuckas shoven bibles up peoples cunts

          [–]istogi 11 points12 points ago

          Photos?

          [–]StrangeJesus 1 point2 points ago

          Speaking as someone who has been proselytized at by Buddhists, I've got to call that assertion incorrect. Religions that don't proselytize get tied to an ethnic identity, religions that do spread out geographically. The spread of Buddhism in China also coincided with periods of major instability, because it acts like any other predatory religion.

          [–]Rekhtanebo 2 points3 points ago

          I think Jainism is very marginally better than buddhism. That isn't to say that both don't have their own nasty little sides to them, as you would expect.

          For an possible example of what isn't so nice about buddhism, a guy with some personal experience wrote about his personal objections to some aspects of buddhism here on /r/atheism a while back that I think is worth reading.

          [–]mamalujo 0 points1 point ago

          eff, I think they tend towards extreme asceticism, which would imply it brings about a lot of pain to its followers.

          Well at least its harmless to non-followers..

          And yeah, I agree with most of what he says, having read a fair bit of the scholastic literature on buddhism, except the last point that guy makes.. well, you can understand it that way. But there have been many alternative readings of the notion of sunyata, parallels with existentialism and poststructuralism etc - say reading it as a rejection of essentialism (that is the philosophical underpinning of all theistic religions).

          So it can be so understood, exp the southern variety. but needn't. In any case, its provocative philosophical discourse and writers like Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Vasubhandu are what I like most about it. As a religion or even a way of life, not so much. And am still unconvinced overall with the body of evidence on the benefits of meditation..

          [–]dusdus 0 points1 point ago

          This, my friend, is all about geography.

          [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

          You need to educate yourself.

          “In Sri Lanka we have faced foreign invasions,” said the Venerable Athuraliye Rathana, the voluble monk who leads the party in Parliament. “We have been not just preaching. We have been fighting.”

          ...

          “If several more L.T.T.E. camps are destroyed, the L.T.T.E. will be confined to their camps in the jungle like Pol Pot,” Mr. Rathana, the party leader, said, referring to the former leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. “Without military action this cannot be defeated.”

          ...

          Buddhist clerics have been important in Sri Lankan politics for hundreds of years; the monks are said to have stood by ancient Buddhist kings in battle and mediated between quarreling rulers. A monk was responsible for the assassination of the country’s first prime minister, Solomon Bandaranaike, in 1959 over a proposed federal system of government, which the nationalists still staunchly oppose.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/world/asia/25lanka.html?pagewanted=all

          The Buddhism you've heard about is only a tiny part of the religion.

          [–]Guck_Mal 0 points1 point ago

          tell that to the people of Tibet under the rule of the Dalai Lama, he was a feudal warlord and everyone that wasn't a monk or rich, were slaves.

          load more comments (17 replies)

            [–]Villainsoft 4 points5 points ago

            By this logic believing in anything is ok, no matter how illogical, until it is disproven by science. The other problem is how do you apply scientific method and testing to intangible concepts like nirvana, samsara and noble truths?

            [–]BuiltThenBurnt 1 point2 points ago

            Why is your first statement a problem?

            [–]drewster23 4 points5 points ago

            But believing in things like nirvana, samsara, and noble truths, dont affect anyone but themselves. There is no problem with someone believing in nirvana Samara,noble truths, and a lot of other Buddhisms philosophies. They won't force their opinions are you, they aren't going to hate you and protest you because you dont believe what they do.

            [–]dusdus 0 points1 point ago

            Until it affects society. Just because the scriptures don't directly say "go kill people" doesn't mean that these illogical beliefs won't have negative consequences. Buddhism teaches complacency, which is the antithesis of social change. Also -- though this is more of a critique of Hinduism since a lot of Buddhists' notions of karma aren't anything more than a truism about causation -- the notion of reincarnation gives a way to blame people for their current statuses.

            A religion can be evil without explicitly teaching evil things.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            They won't force their opinions are you, they aren't going to hate you and protest you because you dont believe what they do.

            You need to stop romanticising Buddhism.

            Research carried out by the BBC Sinhala service has revealed that over the last decade, nearly 110 Buddhist monks have been charged for sexual and physical assaults on minors in Sri Lanka.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15507304

            “In Sri Lanka we have faced foreign invasions,” said the Venerable Athuraliye Rathana, the voluble monk who leads the party in Parliament. “We have been not just preaching. We have been fighting.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/world/asia/25lanka.html?pagewanted=all'

            [–]spazmatt527 -1 points0 points ago

            Yeah, but there's still no empirical evidence.

            [–]drewster23 1 point2 points ago

            But it doesn't matter, it doesn't affect you. You shouldn't feel the need to try to prove someones beliefs wrong, if they keep to themselves.

            [–]scissorhand26 0 points1 point ago

            And not necessarily everything can be considered on the basis of empirical evidence. For instance, try using that in philosophy and see where it gets you :P

            [–]helalo 4 points5 points ago

            wrath of r/atheism aka keyboard wrath.

            [–]beckzilla 1 point2 points ago

            Also, originally Buddhism was atheistic. Some more modern versions have veered away from that, but originally the Buddha did not want to be seen as anything more than a teacher/guide.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Really?

            According to a story in the Āyācana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya VI.1) — a scripture found in the Pāli and other canons — immediately after his awakening, the Buddha debated whether or not he should teach the Dharma to others. He was concerned that humans were so overpowered by ignorance, greed and hatred that they could never recognise the path, which is subtle, deep and hard to grasp.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha#Enlightenment

            Sounds like this Buddha dude thought he was better than everyone else. "Oh you're too stupid to understand", he said, "I'm Enlightened" .

            [–]BarackPutin 1 point2 points ago

            With over 1000 upvotes, that's almost as many times as this has been posted.

            [–]WolfNippleChips 1 point2 points ago

            This, and the fact that most Buddhists don't believe in a god, it is not in their doctrine. The Buddha was a wise man, not a prophet, he didn't claim to have magical otherworldly powers, the strangest thing in Buddhism is the idea of reencarnation, which, is just a likely as a heaven or hell, and Zen Buddhists don't even believe in that.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            What has believing in a god got to do with anything? Not all religions believe in a god. They are still ridiculous fairy tales.

            [–]WolfNippleChips 0 points1 point ago

            true, but my point is that the teachings of buddha only teach one how to live, not what lies beyond. Buddhism in its purest form, is more of a philosophy than a religion. As with many religions, it is the followers who make all the shit up about reencarnation, ressurection, magic bread and wine, and what is considered a sin, what is considered immoral (to the religion specifically). Even with some of the supposed teachings that Jesus gave, all the other stuff written like not wearing a ton of jewelry, not allowing women to teach, not eating pork, etc.etc.etc were the rambelings of others who claimed they were prophets, or chosen. The eight fold path that is the core of Buddhist teachings says nothing that we don't, for the most part, have any beef with. There is nothing hokey, mystical, new age, or magical to it.

            Know the truth - to do this we must question everything

            Be kind to others - the golden rule, be respectful of others, no matter what their opinion is.

            Practice Meditation - Stop, breath, reflect and relax. Nothing special, just take a chill pill when you get stressed.

            Control your thoughts - think, then act, don't act without thinking.

            Resist Evil - Don't be an asshole

            Free Your Mind of Evil - Don't think like an asshole

            Work for the Good of Others - Help a brother (or sister) out. Espically if they are in more need than others.

            Respect Life - Don't kill, unless it is necessary and/or the merciful thing to do.

            [–]StackShitThatHigh 4 points5 points ago

            Wrath of r/atheism.

            Don't make me laugh. You're acting like you guys can accomplish something.

            [–]DiscordianStooge 5 points6 points ago

            Why would you think wrath accomplishes things?

            [–]clinically_cynical 1 point2 points ago

            Sure they can do something; they can skew the results of inconsequential online polls.

            [–]Verblocity 2 points3 points ago

            "Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand... From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct."

            EDIT: I should clarify that I'm not trying to criticize Buddhism in general with this, only the Dalai Lama's views on homosexuality.

            [–]entropybasedorganism 3 points4 points ago

            And just ignore the other bits where he basically said, "so long as its consensual and causes no harm, it's ok" and the call for utmost respect and equal treatment for all people.

            Buddhist proscriptions were never meant to be strict laws, but rough guidelines that one can make personal decisions on, with the exception being issues like murder.

            Same reason there are Buddhist who eat meat, or drink alcohol. The consensus amongst the texts is that those things will hinder you, but there is no reason to see them as explicitly evil actions to take.

            [–]Verblocity -1 points0 points ago

            Not exactly. The term sexual misconduct refers to one of the five precepts, which are the bare minimum requirements for being a practicing Buddhist. He's basically using the same logic as "hate the sin, love the sinner." although he advocates for equal rights for gays, he is very clear in his assertion that you can't be a practicing Buddhist and engage in homosexual acts. In fact, he regards anything other than penis/vagina intercourse to be sexual misconduct.

            EDIT: I should also point out that many Buddhists don't agree with him on this definition of sexual misconduct. I was commenting specifically on his views, not those of Buddhists in general.

            [–]Daemonicus 1 point2 points ago

            The five precepts are guidelines. They are only meant to be discarded if you cannot let go of the attachment. If you have a tendency to drink too much to the point of drunkenness all or most of the time, then you should give up alcohol completely. It's perfectly okay to have 1-2 drinks a night with dinner (or any time) if you choose.

            If anyone of those things causes you to dwell over the negative aspects, then you should give them up completely. Things like greed, jealousy, hate, etc. Are negative and contribute to suffering. The way to stop suffering is to accept that you have these emotions, but not to dwell on them.

            If you can't have sex/relationships without being jealous, don't have sex/relationships.

            If you can't drink without losing your mindfulness, don't drink.

            And so on.

            Now, if Buddhist sects tell you that these are strict rules, then they are not following the teachings of the Buddha.

            [–]Verblocity 0 points1 point ago

            Personally I agree with you regarding the five precepts. Dukkha is a reaction that exists only in the mind, not a feature of the universe. It is an unwillingness to accept reality for what it is, and a desire to cling things which are transitory. Therefore, if I can drink alcohol without clinging, it is not a fetter. If I can have sex without clinging, then it is not a fetter. Everything is considered useful or harmful only inasmuch as it benefits or hinders my practice. This is what the Buddha taught.

            I was only commenting on the Dalai Lama's views on homosexualiy, which are on the conservative end of the spectrum. People like to quote him a lot, and he does have some interesting things to say, but it's not all sunshine and roses. The man is a leader of a religion (specifically Tibetan Buddhism, which differs greatly from other schools), that while being fairly tolerant compared to most other religions, still holds on to some fairly draconian views that would probably rankle the sensibilities of the secular humanists who love quoting the Dalai Lama. I was just providing the other side of that coin.

            [–]Daemonicus 1 point2 points ago

            Agreed, the Dalai Lama is very much contradictory about a lot of things. I personally don't like quotes from the Lama because of his past and some of his ideas. But he is a product of a specific form of Buddhism.

            P.S. Also, I'm not sure why anyone downvoted you, you didn't say anything that deserved it.

            [–]entropybasedorganism 0 points1 point ago

            Which is how I understood it, but my issue with the first post was the cherry picking of the wiki page to misrepresent the opinions of the dalai lama. It seemed to give him a black and white character regarding his views on homosexuality, when they are more nuanced. One can still disagree with him though, as you pointed out.

            Edit: just saw your original edit. On a phone so I can't be bothered to trim too much, but I agree with you.

            [–]RedactedDude 0 points1 point ago

            he is very clear in his assertion that you can't be a practicing Buddhist and engage in homosexual acts

            That's not true at all. He said you can't be a practicing Buddhist monk and engage in homosexual acts. But he said you can't engage in any sex for non-reproductive purposes, either. He has applied this to include oral and anal sex for heterosexuals as well. Anything outside of PIV sex for the purpose of reproduction is considered "sexual misconduct".

            Edit: In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma, he described a traditional Buddhist definition of an appropriate sexual act as follows: "A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else... Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."

            [–]Verblocity 0 points1 point ago

            Monks can't engage in any sexual acts at all. The quote from Beyond Dogma basically is another way of saying "love the sinner, hate the sin." My point in posting the quote was to show that he still holds some fairly antiquated notions about human sexuality, despite the intellectual openness implied by the original quote. I'm not trying to say he's a horrible person--clearly he's not--just showing the other side of the coin.

            [–]RedactedDude 0 points1 point ago

            Except in this case the sin applies to heterosexuals as well. It has nothing to do with marginalizing the homosexuals.

            [–]Verblocity 0 points1 point ago

            I didn't say he wanted to marginalize homosexuals. He doesn't. However, in the original quote he implies that his opinions are informed by reason. In the case of human sexuality, they aren't.

            [–]RedactedDude 0 points1 point ago

            Not really. He states declaratively that Buddhism as a whole will have to follow reason. He implies nothing about his own opinions. I'm not even sure where you would pull such a statement out of that one sentence quoted.

            [–]Verblocity 0 points1 point ago

            He is the head of Tibetan Buddhism. That's like saying the Pope's personal opinions have no bearing on the Catholic Church. His opinions on sexuality are based directly on Tibetan Buddhist texts, and his judgement of what is considered sexual misconduct is explicitly a religious doctrine. You can't separate one from the other. That said, I wouldn't say his opinions reflect those of Buddhism as a whole, but rather the more conservative wing.

            [–]RedactedDude 0 points1 point ago

            I think you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying you're wrong in the point you're trying to make. You aren't. I'm saying you're making an unfounded assumption from that quote and just running with it.

            And yes, you can separate the two. It's called compartmentalization. He has even spoken on it before. As a compassionate being, it is his job to put Buddhism as a whole, and all the people of the world, above his own mortal opinions. So he tries to do what is best for all sentient beings, despite what he may personally believe about the individual actions of those beings. Thus his personal opinion does not always control his actions, despite the accepted doctrine of his faith. This is the very essence of mindfulness.

            Edit* - For example, I'm a liberal and an atheist. That doesn't mean that I always vote democrat, but rather I vote the issues.

            [–]BuiltThenBurnt 0 points1 point ago

            Your criticism is true for anyone who isn't a homosexual or does not participate in sodomy.

            [–]MoshMuth 0 points1 point ago

            wait i dont see this quote i see. "if someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask 'What is your companion's opinion?'. If you both agree, then I think I would say, 'If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'"

            [–]Verblocity 0 points1 point ago

            If you click the link you will see this quote and the other stating that any sex act not involving the penis and the vagina is considered sexual misconduct.

            [–]MoshMuth 0 points1 point ago

            I may be defending too much with a bais but english isn't his first language and other quotes seem more tolerant. Sex for any means other than to have offspring is misconduct. As would be over eating or drinking. This isn't so much your evil as much as your doing something counter to enlightenment.

            [–]gareen5 1 point2 points ago

            Buddhism is totally a religion, with demons, concepts of heaven and hell, and spirits. Quit saying its not.

            [–]dusdus 0 points1 point ago

            Exactly. What do we gain by reciting the "Buddhism isn't a religion" mantra over and over again? Where's all this love coming from?

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            The problem is that even many atheists have no idea what atheism actually is.

            They simply can't grasp the concept that atheism is not anti-religion. So they think that religions have gods, and as such Buddhism isn't a religion.

            I am an atheist. I am also anti-religion. They are not the same thing.

            [–]dusdus 0 points1 point ago

            True. I mean, I know that the notion of "religion" is a very nebulous and squishy one, that is best exemplified with prototypes and not rigorously defined. To me though, as a person who is also anti-religious and very pro-skepticism, pro-empriicism, and pro-materialism, Buddhism is just as silly as other religions, if not as dangerous (which it might not be).

            [–][deleted] ago

            [deleted]

            [–]BuiltThenBurnt 1 point2 points ago

            Or better yet, understand that this is a translation and that your sense of the word "belief" comes with all the trappings you have come to learn about that word through out your life time.

            Anyone who is capable of independent thought relies upon their own experiences and the experiences of the people they trust to frame their own personal world view.

            The Dalai Lama is just pointing out that traditional ways of thinking can and should evolve. You're taking for granted that we all learn that way.

            [–]wm3166 0 points1 point ago

            I may be mistaken, but hasn't Christianity changed over time? I don't see quite as many crusades and whatnot nowadays

            [–]auraaurora 0 points1 point ago

            It has in different sects. Many "Liberal Christians" (since it is not really a denomination, just a type) believe that the Bible is fallible, that even if they were inspired by God, they were still human and prone to lie for their own wants. That and it is basically a game of telephone. Hundreds of years of copying by hand and translating by hand

            [–]kzielinski 0 points1 point ago

            Christian theologians came to the same conclusion back in the 5th Century. When your interpretation of scripture is at odds with what you observer then its then your interpretation must be in error.

            [–]BuiltThenBurnt 0 points1 point ago

            Tenzin Gyatso is an atheist in the same way most westerners are atheists. He does not believe in a creator deity, which is how the big three monotheism's define "God".

            [–]The_Pringles_Guy 0 points1 point ago

            Who could get angry at that face?

            [–]Mattycore 0 points1 point ago

            Well then they need to change their idea on reincarnation cuz science has already proven that long ago after acknowledging the fact that the universe is not infinite like we thought it was...

            [–]JaredCadmus 0 points1 point ago

            Buddhism will change when science disproves an aspect of it? Is there evidence supporting the belief that this guy is the reincarnation of the last leader? No? Then maybe they shouldn't believe this nonsense.

            [–]Rgplmr 0 points1 point ago

            well hell, it's bash athiesm day...

            ive seen this quote far too many times on r/athiesm...

            [–]Itziclinic 0 points1 point ago

            Buddhism has many nice quotes, but this one in particular is problematic like all religions that espouse it. It isn't the burden of Science to try and disprove erratic religious beliefs.

            If you say "God Exists!" and I say, "No it doesn't!". It's your job to show proof of your god's existence, not mine to show its non-existence.

            I say this because this man and all buddhist sects believe in powerful, ethereal elves (Devas). On a side note, it's probably the only religion that views existence as a form of imprisonment that must be escaped from. They just need to understand it to do so.

            tl;dr I think it's as ripe for critique as any other religion, and I salute your veiled attempt at starting a buddhist bash.

            [–]GodlessApeMan 0 points1 point ago

            Buddhism was never intended on being a religion. All of the monks, lay-monks and so forth that I have met with have confirmed that Buddhism is very different than a religion. Buddha was a regular person, not a god and one of the foundations of Buddhism is the acceptance of change. That is why it will face no wrath from atheists. Plus, one can be Agnostic, Atheist and Buddhist without having contradictory beliefs.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Buddhism was never intended on being a religion.

            Oh for fucks sake. Will you please learn the definition of the words "religion", "theism" and "atheism"?

            Buddhism is a religion. It was always intended to be a religion. They still have dogma and temples and rituals and...

            "Theism" and "religion" are not synonyms.

            [–]vashino 0 points1 point ago

            That's because you cannot prove a scientific theory, only find evidence to support it. Therefore, it is a meaningless statement in the strict sense.

            [–]ibzzi 0 points1 point ago

            this is the 10th time im seeing this image on the front page of /r/atheism.. i mean what the fuck people..

            [–]Brettersson 0 points1 point ago

            Atheism means not believing in a god, a religion doesn't really need a god or gods per se

            [–]mikewolfson95 0 points1 point ago

            without knowing a single other thing about buddhism, this makes it sound like the most appealing religion i've heard of to date...

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

            His Holiness, the slaver and human rights abuser (in what the Lama way would be). >.>

            [–]Teamroze 0 points1 point ago

            the dalai lama is not the pope of buddhism

            [–]tethur 0 points1 point ago

            If you think Buddhism has been all peace love and understanding you should open a history book or two. There have been a many instances of wars and skirmishes fought over Buddhist doctrine. And, not unlike christianity, over the centuries there have been many familial and professional ties between the civil governments and the religious leadership, leading to institutionalized oppression. And let's not forget to mention the many warrior monks who for plundered, blackmailed and raped their way through the countryside.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Buddhist Monks of the Shaolin Temple spend much of their lives learning how to beat the shit out of people.

            Peaceful my ass.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

            buddhism also avoids the wrath of /r/atheism because buddhists are atheist.

            [–]blows 0 points1 point ago

            "This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness. My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness. Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."

            "Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive."

            "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion."

            Dalai Lama

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            He wasn't very compassionate to the serfs that fed him and clothed him and maintained his palaces for him.

            In fact when shit hit the fan, he ran to the rich men's parties to complain about how unfair those damn Chinese were for taking away his slaves.

            [–]blows 0 points1 point ago

            And the chinese communist party of 80 million living off the backs of 1.3 billion chinese slaves is better how?

            [–]velocom 0 points1 point ago

            You realize that this is the same guy who thinks he is in his 14th reincarnation, don't you?

            I mean, what bullshit. Even Time Lords can't do it more than 12 times.

            [–]Mandinder 0 points1 point ago

            -His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama

            Anyone who goes around calling themselves 'His Holiness' is incurring my wrath. People believe that he is worthy of reverence and devotion by virtue of his birth.

            If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Budhism willl have to change."

            He's saying that he intends to move the goal posts if proven wrong. 'Okay, that bit was wrong, but all the other unfounded nonsense is still true.' I can't speak for anyone else, but I came to atheism through scepticisms and critical thinking. This kind of crap is intellectually dishonest, and worthy of scorn.

            [–]bloomyjuly 0 points1 point ago

            "His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama"

            Well this guy must be special...

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Short-bus "Special".

            [–]VallanMandrake 0 points1 point ago

            • You overrate the Dalai Lama. He is not the king of all buddhists (like some pope...) but just the leader of some, relatively small fraction of buddhism - the Tiebet tradition (Buddhist traditions).
            • Buddhism has evolved so much over its history that they should be used to chance... and just accept things that are better. (just see above chart)

            [–]rahmspinat 0 points1 point ago

            It's a very nice quote, but compared to what?

            Since this is r/atheism, we sure know the doctrines of the great monotheistic buildings. But what exactly is meant by "proved wrong"? Sure not by pointing out the empty ideas of reincarnation or the Nirvana. They're as much nonsense as the purgatory, genies or tarot.

            I don't see much change, Mr. Gyatsho, if this is your real name :D.

            [–]EmpRupus 0 points1 point ago

            Its ironic that the symbol of /r/atheism is Russell's teapot and burden of proof, and yet this is considered awesome. The Lama strongly believes scientists are wrong about consciousness coming from material in brain, calling them narrow-minded. Of course there are other reasons I admire him, but not this.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            What reasons do you have to admire him?

            He did nothing to help his people when he was the ruler. He does nothing to help them now.

            Sure he jets all over the world to hang out with the rich and powerful, but what does he actually do apart from spewing platitudes as though they meant anything?

            [–]EmpRupus 0 points1 point ago

            What reasons do you have to admire him?

            He has progressive views DESPITE his conservative religion, and tries extremely hard to make them seem compatible. I personally think he's a closet atheist.

            For example, I think he realizes that rebirth is bullshit and choosing a leader based on that is immoral. He has therefore declared that he refuses to take rebirth in next life and Tibetians should switch to a democratic leader.

            [–]ajtothe 0 points1 point ago

            Let's be honest, it's because Atheists don't know anything about Buddhism

            [–]Fausto1981 0 points1 point ago

            this a fake condition. plus, it's totally illogical to say "if science denies what i belive in, i'll change my mind". they should say "before i belive in bullshit such as karma and reincarnation, i should find proof of them".

            [–]Roderick111 0 points1 point ago

            I wish my fellow atheists would wake the fuck up a little and realize the Dalai Lama isn't all that great. He's little more than a deposed despot who will not even speak out when his own adherents set themselves on fire in Tibet.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 1 point2 points ago

            You know why the Dalai Lama is all "liberal" now? Because he lives off the donations of morons who buy stupid platitudes like the one in the OP's quote.

            [–]i_am_the_fish 0 points1 point ago

            /atheism is only slightly less retarted than /r/christianity.

            Wrath? It's like a pack of teenagers thinking they are clever.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Your impotent rage is only making my dick hard.

            [–]jalo123 0 points1 point ago

            Dalai Lama is great for this, but I'm pretty sure there's a double meaning here. In addition to acknowledging the power of science in elucidating cause and effect in a way that's provable, he's also pointing out that things that are metaphysical cannot, ultimately be proven or disproven. As a result he's remarking that science has nothing to say on the metaphysics of religion.

            In reality he's doing something much more important than acknowledging the power of science. He's noting that science and religion are -for the most part - mutually exclusive, that the two have absolutely nothing to say about each other. Both fields explore separate areas under the grand umbrella of knowledge - science studying the cause and effect of the physical realm, and religion exploring the metaphysical. The logical follow up to that point is that each has no justification for dictating the form of the other, except in the minor situations where they overlap.

            There are many Christians and Muslims that believe exactly what the Dalai Lama said here. If their religion had something to say about the physical world that was disproved by science then science would win out. There are also famous religious leaders who have expressed this just like the Dalai Lama. Pope John Paul II stated that theories on evolution were justified and fully compatible with the Christian religion, except in cases where they made judgments about the presence and origin of the soul (which is a completely metaphysical concept). Obviously, there are dumbfucks out there who don't believe this and sadly those are the loud ones --> but I guarantee you there are just as many ignorant Buddhists who would be just as unwilling to accept facts.

            So, lets be honest here. Buddhists don't feel the wrath of r/atheism because very few people in the western world have felt the butthurt of Buddhist intolerance. Neither have they seen ignorant Buddhists shooting their mouths off on the evening news. But intolerance and ignorance do exist in the Buddhist religion. It's just that there just aren't that many poor, uneducated Buddhists in America and Europe.

            So fuck, give some of the Christians a break. They realize their religion is ridiculous and implausible.

            [–]dusdus 0 points1 point ago

            You can say that, but that doesn't mean Buddhists do that.

            I am not sure there is any naturalist, materialist worldview that is consistent with Buddhism.

            [–]johnny107 0 points1 point ago

            You know that guy believe in the most trippy and bizarre version of Buddhism on Earth, right?

            I mean shit..go read the Tibetan Book Of The Dead. Really.

            That shit's about as scientific as a bad acid trip.

            [–]gabriot 0 points1 point ago

            Christians say this too....

            Hate to break this to you but Buddhism isn't exactly the spitting image of science.

            [–]gadorp 0 points1 point ago

            THIS IS NOT HOW THE UNIVERSE WORKS!

            You don't just get to claim something ludicrous then say "I'm right until science disproves me, then I'll move onto my next claim." As nice as it seems, it's still backward.

            [–]codythomashunsberger 0 points1 point ago

            I'm an anti-theist, but I respect Buddhism because of this: it has a live and let live mentality. Am I wrong in thinking that Buddhism doesn't try to force itself/control others, and that very few (if any) other religions do the same?

            [–]mamalujo 0 points1 point ago

            with the huge geography and very long history, surely there exist counterexamples.

            [–]codythomashunsberger 0 points1 point ago

            Of course there are exceptions, but overall it seems to be a very peaceful religion. It's like the image posted in /r/atheism recently says, it's sad to see people waste their lives away expecting a better second life, but it's worse to see them make other peoples' lives worse because of it.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            but overall it seems to be a very peaceful religion

            Only when it doesn't have to try and coexist with other religions. Then, like the rest, it's just as violent and evil as any other.

            Ask the Tamils.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Buddhism isn't a theistic religion.

            [–]codythomashunsberger 0 points1 point ago

            Turns out you're (mostly) right. Sorry for exuding uninformed idiocy there.

            Wikipedia says the following:

            Buddhism is a religion and philosophy indigenous to the Indian subcontinent that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs, and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha (meaning "the awakened one" in Sanskrit and Pāli).

            So it's a religion, but based heavily on philosophy rather than a deity.

            [–]LucifersCounsel 1 point2 points ago

            Here is a rule of thumb that can help avoid such errors:

            If they pray in temples/churches, they are a religion.

            [–]gothangelblood 0 points1 point ago

            GGDL at it again.

            [–]anonymous92 0 points1 point ago

            Then why is Karma still widely believed by Bhuddists?

            [–]palparepa 0 points1 point ago

            Challenge accepted. Is there any falsifiable buddhist belief that isn't vague and/or subject to "interpretation"?

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Short answer: No.

            Longer answer: Fuck no.

            [–]Bearshoes5 0 points1 point ago

            I'm atheist but I like the buddhist religion. This is why.

            [–]SomeGamerKid 0 points1 point ago

            THANK YOU FOR REPOSTING THIS

            THANK YOU SO MUCH

            [–]LucifersCounsel 0 points1 point ago

            Oh hey that slavemaster with the rolex...

            Is he still pulling this scam?

            [–]eljesse 0 points1 point ago

            I can't believe this guy is praised on here, how can you PROVE something doesn't exist!?!?! It's a LOGICAL FALLACY people!, looks like "his holiness" needs to re-think this. The fact that something cannot be proven wrong nor right, doesn't make it right!.. hey guys here's one.....

            They day that Logic proves that buddhism is wrong, buddhism will have to change (not cease to exist, just change).....

            [–]JimmyGBA 2 points3 points ago

            The Dalai Lama is one holy man I would love to meet and shake hands with. He seems like a man of deep thought and untold knowledge.

            [–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

            He's a living fortune cookie.

            load more comments (2 replies)

              [–]ArsenalOwl 0 points1 point ago

              Weird, most of the time I read quotes from one of the Dalai Lamas it doesn't specify which one. I always found that humorous.

              [–]DiscordianStooge 1 point2 points ago

              Most Dalai Lama quotes people use are from the current one.

              [–]GrooveCombo 0 points1 point ago

              Yeah, I don't mess with Buddhists. They are good people.

              [–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

              There are tons of Muslims and Christians that are good people too. Why the discrepancy? If we're going to tout objectivity and logic as the benefits of an atheistic worldview, make sure your beliefs and actions are consistent.

              [–]GrooveCombo 1 point2 points ago

              I'm a cerebral insufficient, my logic is chaotic, my argument impenetrable.

              Thats my way of saying you're probably correct and I will be more rhetorically sound with my statements.

              [–]Amryxx 0 points1 point ago

              So basically, as long as someone said something nice, r/atheism will not turn its... er, "wrath" on it.

              So much for being rational and logical.

              [–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

              Whoever downvoted you, fuck off.

              I can't imagine any consistent naturalist, atheistic worldview that would be compatible with any version of any religion that is more than trivialities. If by Buddhism you mean "it's good to meditate, not be materialistic, and remember that actions have causes", then you're not talking about anything but platitudes. Anything more are falsehoods that can be dangerous, either directly or indirectly.

              [–]bradythemonkey -1 points0 points ago

              Wrath of r/atheism? Bahahahaha! you guys sit behind a computer and write stuff on Reddit about how people's beliefs are stupid, and you call it wrath? r/atheism is a joke.

              [–]stickfigure68 -2 points-1 points ago

              The major fallacy for Monsieur Lama is that he insists we falsify his non-falsifiable claims. It's on the same level as me saying:

              I promise to not believe in the sexually attractive invisible unicorn in my backyard (on whom I base the morality of my life), but only if you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the unicorn isn't real, and I've actually been fapping to air.

              He's making the same statement as theists, just in a slightly less confrontational manner.

              [–]rasputine 6 points7 points ago

              No he's not at all doing that, because other theistic groups will insist that their myths are correct even when they've been conclusively disproven.

              The buddhist's non-falsifiable tidbits aren't particularly problematic, life force reincarnating, demons and beasties that don't affect the real world, nirvana and spiritual purity aren't big deals. The path these tenets and philosophies lead them down is a pretty fucking chill path.

              Ditto for your unicorn, it really doesn't matter to the rest of us if he's real or not, so long as you jack him off in private.

              The problem is theists who insist that other people must believe their fables, or they're evil and should be executed, or should be imprisoned or should be denied equal rights. That people must act in accordance with their fables, or be punished. That their fables are the absolute truth and absolute moral guidance.

              The Dalai Lama won't catch much shit from us because he and his followers are generally nice people. The worst, the ABSOLUTE WORST thing I know of his followers is that they're willing to self-immolate to protest the chinese brutality directed at them. If that was how muslim extremists protested, this would be a very, very different world.

              [edit] I hate doing this, but you guys shouldn't be downvoting stickfigure68. You may disagree with him, I certainly do, but he brought up a reasonable point with a humorous and relevant analogy that led to a good discussion. Don't downvote just because you disagree with him.

              [–]Grotski 0 points1 point ago

              Would it not be better if they just stripped the weird nonsensical ideas from their teachings? I don't know about you, but I don't need the threat of living reincarnated lives as insects to not go on a murderous rampage. Honestly, what's the point if it has no actual bearing on reality as a whole?

              [–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

              Once you do that, Buddhism amounts to "be a nice person, don't be materialistic, and remember that causes have effects", but said in a reaaaaallly long winded way.

              [–]dusdus 0 points1 point ago

              Christians and Muslims are generally nice people.

              And if you think Buddhists are only capable of self immolation in protest and not worse things, I'd sorely recommend a history lesson in South Asian and Japanese religious politics.

              load more comments (2 replies)

                [–]deathadder99 3 points4 points ago

                To be honest, Buddhism is worse than the shining example that /r/atheism makes it out to be. Doesn't mean that hateful religions like Christianity and Islam should be neglected in favour of it (I'd rather that all theists were buddhist if they had to be religious tbh - at least they accept gay people), but don't put it on a pedestal.

                [–]ApokalypseCow 1 point2 points ago

                I won't put Buddhism up on a pedestal, but as long as they keep saying rational things like this, I won't mind them having a soap box.

                [–]deathadder99 0 points1 point ago

                But it's not really rational. It's basically the same as you can't PROVE god doesn't exist. Just in a less confrontational manner.

                [–]ApokalypseCow 1 point2 points ago

                Yes and no. They have some initial assumptions that are not made on the basis of logic and/or evidence, so we do have some fundamental disagreements with them. However, their approach here is a rationalist one, and shows that they value evidence and evidence-based conclusions in at least some fashion, and that they have little use for dogma. This sort of thing ought to be encouraged, I think.

                It is a damn sight better than having a holy book that makes some specific and bold unevidenced claims and calling it inerrant, at least.

                [–]deathadder99 0 points1 point ago

                I agree that they are a damn sight better than other religions right now. I'm just saying they aren't perfect.:) But we should focus more on people being killed and science being silenced than people having irrational beliefs.

                [–]Mnementh2230 1 point2 points ago

                100% agreed.

                The way I figure it, focusing on Buddhists when there are Abrahamic religions in the world is like worrying about a few scratches on your car's paint job when you're going 60mph on 4 flat tires. Take care of the seriously problems first, then go after the smaller ones.

                [–]instapunish 2 points3 points ago

                I agree with this. While it seems innocent it is a clear shifting of the burden of proof. It is not for us to disprove something, it is for the person that makes the assertion to do. Being willing to change your mind is great, but believing something without evidence and requiring others to prove you wrong - not so much.

                [–]DiscordianStooge 1 point2 points ago

                Could you provide an artist's rendition of this sexy, sexy unicorn?

                [–]rasputine 1 point2 points ago

                Well, you could probably find something on /r/clopclop [NSFW] but seriously, I wouldn't recommend it.

                [–]BrawndoTTM 0 points1 point ago

                Heed this dude's warning

                [–]dusdus 1 point2 points ago

                Stickfigure, I don't understand why people are downvoting you. Fuck 'em. You're completely right.

                Atheists shouldn't settle for anything less than "I don't believe in something until it's proven".

                [–]sahuxley[S] 0 points1 point ago

                So, if I understand what you're saying, in practice they don't actually accept science that disproves certain things?

                [–]cumfarts -1 points0 points ago

                Nothing to do with atheism

                [–]ReallyEvilCanine -4 points-3 points ago

                FUCK THE DALAI LAMA.

                load more comments (59 replies)

                  Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

                  REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

                  π Rendered by PID 10359 on app-62 running 6bc9a40.