this post was submitted on
672 points (74% like it)
1,020 up votes 348 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,159,576 readers

1,566 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 127 comments

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points ago

Buddhism gets way too much credit in the west. It has just as violent a history as the Abrahamic religions.

[–]lWantYourDownvote 4 points5 points ago

interesting. could you provide some proof for such a heavy statement?

[–]lWantYourDownvote -1 points0 points ago

thx

[–]Plavonica 2 points3 points ago

Should I upvote this? I am confused.

[–]lWantYourDownvote 1 point2 points ago

Forgot i was on my stupid novelty account XD

[–]JesusDoesntWantYou -1 points0 points ago

novelty account

actually an account to take downvotes on because you're a karma whore.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

[–]infernal_llamas 0 points1 point ago

that does not implicate individual members of a very perceptive lifestyle (yes lifestyle I use the word deliberately)

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

First of all, I wasn't pointing the finger at modern Buddhists and saying "This is your fault." That would be about as fair as punishing all of humanity forever because the first humans disobeyed me.

Secondly, Buddhism is a religion in the sense that it has doctrine, dogma, myth, etc. but, yes, there are individuals which claim the identity and live a certain lifestyle (not necessarily according to the original meaning much like the modern Christian lifestyle). And it is no more or less a "perceptive" lifestyle as the particular individual living it.

[–]wizgrao 0 points1 point ago

Yeah but just as he said, Buddhism is open to change, unlike Christianity or Islam

[–]boggart777 -2 points-1 points ago

i tried posting this today, voted to the basement. http://imgur.com/TQPXf

[–]hazious 1 point2 points ago

So? - This man fucking gets it. He knows what's up. Who cares about the bloodshedding in the past if the the man is openly saying that he will change the religion if enough proof is provided. To me, that's really amazing.

[–]IAmChubs 2 points3 points ago

Let's put this in proper context. He's saying that if science can prove a negative - that some part of his religious fairy-tale is false - then he'll change his position. He's not really going out on a limb here.

It's a nice olive branch, but it is really an empty offer. I'll change my position on the teapot orbiting Neptune, or that there's not a magical dragon in my garage - if you can provide proof they don't exist. Don't forget that I get to move the goalpost as often as I want.

[–]hazious 0 points1 point ago

I just think that the Dalai Lama is a nice person - The fact that Buddhism gets the fame here is somewhat problematic, but from my point of view i'm just glad that rational, intelligent people that also believes in religion still exist, when all you hear about in this subreddit is extremist americans.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

The title is giving credit to Buddhism not this man. This man deserves the credit. Buddhism deserves nothing.

[–]SSHeretic 1 point2 points ago

But the burden of proof is on him to prove his claims, not others to disprove them. If he truly 'fucking gets it' he wouldn't believe in unproven claims to begin with.

[–]hazious 0 points1 point ago

Neither are we to try push on our claims unto him. The point is, of all extremist creationists out there he is definetely wise and somewhat rational. If he believes in a deity or not is up to him.

[–]boggart777 0 points1 point ago

yeah, he's just saying it

[–]omglaurent -1 points0 points ago

I dont get why the past story of buddhism has anything to do with how great of a religion it is right now

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

Buddhism is misrepresented in the west as this New Agey peace and love religion. It isn't a great religion. The fundamentals of Buddhism and its texts are just as bad the Torah, the Bible and the Koran. Making it just as easy to use Buddhism to justify atrocities as it is any other religion.

[–]livethehemingway 0 points1 point ago

Sorry, but I have to say it: Buddhism is not a religion. There is no definite doctrine. Even the Buddha expressed limitations in teaching because the goal of the philosophy was to realize something that was already within. There is no other requirements that hold significance other than the pursuit.

[–]kiddr01 1 point2 points ago

It's a grey area for some. There are different doctrines (as you said) but this doesn't mean it's not a religion. Some of those doctrines view the buddha as a god (or god like being - not much difference between the two if you ask me) Who's been reincarnated thousands of times. Believing in reincarnation (which is stating a knowledge of what happens to you after death) also makes it a bit religion-y. This coupled with the fact there rules/guides for how to live life, leads me to view it as a religion.

But, as i said this is an issue for different people. i think it's just semantics and personal perspective in the end

[–]livethehemingway 0 points1 point ago

The aspects of Buddhism that you term "religion-y" are largely a part of the bigger picture in their experience. Since most things within our paradigm are illusory, even reincarnation, gods, the Buddha himself, and nearly everything else falls away once enlightenment is reached. So if "ultimate awake-ness" is the ultimate goal of Buddhism (in which all things fall away as important and necessary) then how can we classify it as a religion? I would agree that many sects of Buddhism have specialized and become denominational like christian churches, but the core of Buddhism, I will continually contest, is philosophic in nature and not religious.

[–]fluffybullet 1 point2 points ago

Well, what is a religion? The Dalai Lama, for example, is the recognized leader of Gelugpa(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelug), the dominant school of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, which has definite teachings and a whole range of demi-gods and saint-like figures. Including, obviously, the 14th Dalai Lama himself. What's important to recognize here is that Buddhism is not a coherent whole, that the Dalai Lama represents a very small part of Buddhist doctrines and is the figurehead of a very specific subset of teachings and doctrines. Regardless, if that counts as a "religion" entirely depends on how you choose to define the concept of religion, which is a very complicated term indeed.

[–]livethehemingway 0 points1 point ago

But the "gods" and saints that they worship are, because of the non-dualistic nature of the philosophy, essentially figureheads for elements of the universe in which we are all connected. I have witnessed Buddhists thank the god of rain for an afternoon rainstorm. This isn't that my friend truly believed in a god responsible for rain, simply that they were personifying and honoring the rain itself as a fellow element of this earth.

[–]fluffybullet 0 points1 point ago

Well, I'm sorry but your friend isn't representative for all of Buddhism either and it's a perilous thing in general to speak of what people think of the things they worship, how they feel, how they relate. There's not one thing that all Buddhists believe, there are general guidelines, but there's a large portion of people who have never studied the philosophy who are Buddhists, who pray to a Bodhisattva that they'll be reborn in one of the heavenly spheres because they know that's the best they can hope for. The gods of Buddhism don't correspond to the god of the abrahamite traditions, but they do correspond to gods in other cultural contexts, present and past, so it seems a bit reductionist to say that they aren't gods.

Now, I'm not saying Buddhism is a religion, or that it isn't. Perhaps you'll find this interesting:

http://www.iupui.edu/~womrel/Rel433%20Readings/01_SearchableTextFiles/Asad_ConstructionOfReligionAnthroCategory.pdf

[–]mrrobopuppy 14 points15 points ago

If you call him "his holiness" then it doesn't belong here. He is simply a man like all of us.

[–]rasputine 21 points22 points ago

He's technically a foreign ruler, and his appropriate style is His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. Calling him His Holiness isn't a reference to the fact that we think he's holy, it's like calling Obama Mr. President, or like calling Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI.

It's not offensive to refer to someone by their title, it doesn't imply that you believe he was the reincarnation of the bodhisatva of compassion.

[–]kzielinski 1 point2 points ago

Totally Agree. He is Mr Gyatso, and nothing more. And I don't care what title he has in his fantasy club any more than I care what title Mr Ratzinger has in his. My policy is that I do not recognize religious titles. Unless you have a gun to my head, at which point I'm respecting the gun, not the title.

[–]ThirdFloorNorth 0 points1 point ago

I don't like the haughty intelligentsia, so I refuse to call people with a doctorate "Dr." See how that sounds?

Honestly, and this is coming from a militant atheist, you sound like an absolute prick, especially with phrases like "fantasy club."

Here is a scenario: You are writing an article, a paper, giving a lecture, whatever. You refuse to call a high-profile Iranian priest and politician "Imam." At best, you sound foolish, at worst, downright ignorant. The title can be "His Holiness," "Pope," or "Supreme Sex God Lord Shamalamadingdong," as long as it is a proper appointed and acknowledged title, to stubbornly refuse to use it in reference is just dumb and makes you look silly.

[–]TheWanderingJew 2 points3 points ago

to stubbornly refuse to use it in reference is just dumb and makes you look silly.

The weird thing here is that he's saying one subjective thing will absolutely make one look silly, and you're saying that doing the same subjective thing will make someone look silly.

To me, the fact that there's an argument at all invalidates both of your arguments.

[–]TornadoDaddy -1 points0 points ago

Letting go of values and convictions at gunpoint is cowardice... Just a thought

[–]123American 7 points8 points ago

yes, losing your life so that you are not considered a coward is definitely the way to go.

[–]JehovahsHitlist 2 points3 points ago

Not a good one. That's not cowardice, that's pragmatism. Values and convictions that require you die needlessly lest they be revoked are not good ones.

[–]cryptobomb -1 points0 points ago

Unless you have a gun to my head, at which point I'm respecting the gun, not the title.

That's the most colossally stupid statement I have read in a while.

[–]Amryxx 18 points19 points ago

r/atheism: where it's fine to put a theocratic feudal ruler on a pedestal as long as he says something vaguely anti-religion.

[–]rasputine 30 points31 points ago

A theocratic feudal ruler who:

  • Was appointed without his consent
  • Wants to reform to democracy
  • Wants to ensure there will be no more Dalai Lamas after him
  • Spends his life trying to minimize the suffering of his deeply religious people under the totalitarian thumb of China
  • Is a lot fucking better a person that you will ever be.

[–]Antares42 5 points6 points ago

Is a lot fucking better a person that you will ever be.

[citation needed]

[–]vonShang 4 points5 points ago

  • owned thousand of serfs and slaves
  • ran goverment in exile as a family business
  • took money for CIA for personal use and creating a guerilla, while preaching non-violence
  • claims his school of budhism is superior to others

[–]captain_jerkface 6 points7 points ago

Sorry, got to respond to that last one, being a positive influence on the world is easy when you've been put on a pedestal and people will listen to you. This isn't some deep philosophical point he's making and in fact it's not even intellectually honest. He's just shifting the burden of proof. Plenty of normal people have had thought and said more valid things about spirituality and the examined life than this, but not many people pay attention to what random non-celebrities say.

[–]CalvinLawson 0 points1 point ago

Have you ever read the Dhalai Lama? The book this saying is taken from is quite good, especially how he finishes the quote.

I for one welcome our eastern atheist brothers.

[–]livethehemingway 0 points1 point ago

Thank FSM that someone recognized that there are no legitimate "gods" in Buddhism. All are one with everything, negating the deification of celestial beings.

[–]tashtrac 0 points1 point ago

Depends. There are Demigods, hells etc. in various branches of Buddhism.
Simple example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_%28Buddhism%29

[–]fluffybullet 1 point2 points ago

What's a legitimate god, anyway?

[–]livethehemingway 0 points1 point ago

FSM, like I said.

[–]Dev1l5Adv0cat3 0 points1 point ago

He's a lot higher than you will ever be!

[–]TsukiBear -4 points-3 points ago

THANK YOU!!! Holy fuck, these things get upvoted over and over despite the fact that this guy says he is a living god. We are such hypocrites with anything remotely related to Buddhism!

[–]whatevesbro 1 point2 points ago

Damn, is this r/atheism or r/TibetanBuddhism?

[–]TsukiBear 1 point2 points ago

Well, you see, we love to bash on Christians for cherry picking the parts of the Bible they like and ignoring the bad parts. However, when it comes to Buddhism, well, we don't need to look at all the bad stuff, right? I mean, sometimes they say stuff we like!

It is fucking bullshit. And worse, it's hypocritical.

[–]whatevesbro -1 points0 points ago

Yeah, I never really gave much credence to the "r/atheism" is more like "r/BashChristianity" but this seems to prove otherwise. I am let down. Sorry Christians...I'd just like to say that I disapprove of all religions equally.

[–]willo_sea 1 point2 points ago

He doesn't claim to be a living god. I'm pretty sure there is no god at all in Buddhism. The Dalai Lama is just considered to be the latest reincarnation of enlightened beings who can help others to also achieve enlightenment.

[–]TsukiBear 0 points1 point ago

Nope. He is the living god-king, the 14th reincarnation of the Buddhist god of compassion, Chenrezig. Also, Buddhism established the divinity of the Buddha 1600 years ago (about 700 years after Gautama Buddha specifically told them not to, but that was in India and 700 years is a long time). Ten minutes on the internet can catch you up on 2300+ years of the grand history of Buddhism. Some sects of Buddhism don't have gods, but the vast majority do--especially in Asia (and Asia is a pretty big place).

Note, however, that Buddhism doesn't have gods the way Christianity defines god. That doesn't matter, though, because "there is no evidence of gods" happily includes mystic weak sauce gods just as much as it includes angry gods who flood the world.

Also, the current Dalai Lama was in charge of Tibet for nearly a full decade as the living god-king before the Chinese came in and kicked him out. So much for not claiming to be a living god. Furthermore, after the Chinese ended the living fucking nightmare that was Tibet under the Dalai Lama led theocracy, he spent the last fifty years trying to reestablish that theocracy along with his ruling body of priests until his "retirement" in 2011. Oh boy, that sounds just like someone we should plaster all over /r/atheism! After all, he said something we like! ...Cherry picking much?

[–]bewbsrkewl 1 point2 points ago

nice try, China.

[–]Fissak -1 points0 points ago

10 minutes on the internet still leaves you completely ignorant. I honestly want to know what sources you got all that from.

[–]TsukiBear 2 points3 points ago

Alright, ya got me. I didn't read my information off the internet.

I got it from reading books on the history of Buddhism, the original Buddha, it's spread across Asia, it's evolution into a religion that believes in gods as it mixed with native beliefs on the Asian continent. I was a history major in college, so I had to write all sorts of papers on it.

They all took longer than ten minutes. So you got me. I figured there would be some good info on the web, but it's very scattered and convoluted. My advice? Do what I did and read a bunch of books.

If you just want to read about Tibet specifically (since the OP was on the Dalai Lama), a good place to start is "Stick Out Your Tongue," by Ma Jian. That is NOT a historical primer, though, it is only a good place to start because it's a very fast read, and it gives a human perspective on what can be incredibly dry historical accounts. Pair those stories with historical records, and you'll be utterly fucking amazed that we continue to put the Dalai Lama all over this subreddit. It will shock you.

[–]Fissak 0 points1 point ago

I knew there was no way you could learn all that from the web. I now realize how my first comment seemed hostile. I was simply accusing being so well versed after 10 minutes.

[–]TsukiBear 1 point2 points ago

Actually I didn't read it as being hostile. I read it as legitimately wanting sources. Plus I assumed there would be quality information on the internet without actually checking, so that's a nice catch. In either case, it didn't really hurt to admit that I was formally educated on the subject. Seriously, though, books on Buddhism are the way to go. It isn't what everyone thinks it is. It has its mean and nasty sides once it managed to get political control in some areas just like all the other religions. Also, it is completely bullshit, just like all the other religions.

[–]nismos14270r 0 points1 point ago

At this point I'm not sure that you understand that Tibetan Buddhism is only one faction of Buddhism, as that is all you ever speak of. You are aware that there are many different facets of Buddhism, right? Not all of them subscribe to metaphysical beliefs and supernatural elements.

I consider myself to be a Buddhist, and I have no gods, no claims of an afterlife, no beliefs, no soul, no spirit. Buddha's teaching live on, but he is as dead in the ground as anyone else and as I will be.

However, when it comes down to it, I do not disagree with that you posted about the Dalai Lama, but to assume that Tibetan Buddhism IS buddhism is to be just purely ignortant.

[–]TsukiBear -1 points0 points ago

Yes, I understand that there's a whole bunch of Buddhist doing lots of different Buddhist things. Considering that Tibetan Buddhism is the subject of this original post, I figured it'd be understood why I'm focusing on it. Guess not, though. In either case, the Dalai Lama considers himself to be a living god-king, and he ruled as such for nearly a decade.

I never said Tibetan Buddhism IS Buddhism, so don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I explicitly spoke about there being multiple sects of Buddhism, "Some sects of Buddhism don't have gods, but the vast majority do--especially in Asia...".

Buddha teaches live on...

Wow, that sounds, like, super spiritual and stuff. Or maybe it sounds like complete bullshit from 2400 years ago. As a Buddhist, do you consider yourself stuck in cycle of death and reincarnation? Because those things don't exist.

[–]nismos14270r -1 points0 points ago

"I have no gods, no claims of an afterlife, no beliefs, no soul, and no spirit. Buddha's teaching live on, but he is as dead in the ground as anyone else and as I will be."

[–]TsukiBear -1 points0 points ago

I don't think you understand the fundamentals of your own belief system.

The religious not even understanding their own faith and their own history? What else is new?

[–]whatevesbro -2 points-1 points ago

Thanks for this.

[–]123American 2 points3 points ago

2012

Still believing there is an afterlife.

Yeah, No Thank you.

[–]Negro_Napoleon 4 points5 points ago

Please stop promoting this sort of cognitive dissonance. As the burden of proof lies, the Dalai Lama hasn't proven anything he's even said to be true, real, or valid.

[–]code_monkey_steve 2 points3 points ago

His Holiness

Am I the only one bothered by that?

[–]ddotodot -1 points0 points ago

Just because we call Elizabeth "Your Majesty" doesn't mean she's majestic. It's just the style accorded to her position within her country and we abide by it out of respect. Calling something holy doesn't make it so.

[–]rasputine 1 point2 points ago

No, but you don't have a good reason to be bothered by it.

[–]Antares42 2 points3 points ago

"holy" - sacred, associated with the divine, entitled to worship.

To me, "holy" is a bullshit word just like "all-powerful". It asserts a value that isn't there.

inb4 "It's just his title": Yes, but no. Titles have a meaning. I'll call the president "president" because he actually presides over something. I'll call the queen of England "majesty" because she has, or at least her office used to have, a supreme position of power. Their titles describe a real thing. But if the leader of, say, Poland, insists of being addressed as "Master of the Universe, Solver of all Worldly Disputes", I will not do him that favor.

We don't have to bend over backwards for tradition and reverence. We don't usually call the Kims of North Korea "Beloved Leaders" except to point out their delusions of grandeur.

I'm not going to call anything "holy", because nothing is.

[–]rasputine 0 points1 point ago

As I said, no good reasons.

[–]Antares42 0 points1 point ago

Since when does r/atheism put up with b-b-b-bullshit?

Clarification: I don't begrudge you your zen, your not-being-bothered, but I invite you to understand that others are annoyed by undeserved worship, and that their reasons should not be wiped away.

[–]rasputine 0 points1 point ago

I'm not buddhist, but "I don't believe in his religion" isn't a good reason to be bothered by someone using a person's official title. Are you bothered when people refer to Joseph Ratzinger as the Pope Benedict whatevernumberheis?

[–]Antares42 0 points1 point ago

Wikipedia says:

The current Dalai Lama is often called "His Holiness" (HH) by Westerners (by analogy with the Pope), although this does not translate to a Tibetan title.

You're right, on the other hand, that there's no solid line somewhere. We're arguing degrees. I have a tolerance for eccentric titles as long as they're closely connected to the office. I'm not much bothered by "pope" as in "church father" because that's a rather straightforward description of his position. I also don't have a problem calling priests priest (or Lamas in this case).

What I feel uncomfortable with, however, is calling things or people holy or sacred.

If you don't, well, go ahead. I won't stop you. But please at least respect that my threshold is different.

[–]Firekracker 4 points5 points ago

No. No. A thousand times no. The Lama is head of a facist oppressive system that did more harm than good to it's people back when it was in power. Byfar not every buddhist is a peaceful person and in fact many aspects of buddhism have already been proven wrong by science. Buddhism is not some sort of likeable exotic philosophy from Asia, it is a religion that demands literal interpretation of it's teachings.

[–]nismos14270r 6 points7 points ago

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." ~ The Buddha

Buddha never wrote down anything he taught, nor did he ever appoint a "successor". This was done for the explicit purpose of allowing for changes and interpretations amongst different cultures and generations. Tibet just so happen to create its own variety that is more of a political tool and religion. Buddhism at its core is completely agnostic and devoid of any supernatural or metaphysical ideas. Its merely a way to train your mind to be at peace with your present reality.

I highly recommend you do a bit of reading on the subject. Especially Stephen Bachelors book, Buddhism without Beliefs

[–]teoman10 4 points5 points ago

Kinda agree! But i didn't know about the fascist part though.

And also. Isn't putting "his holiness" a bit contrary to what is beeing brought across in this quote, and what many people portray him as?

[–]Firekracker 1 point2 points ago

The term Facist is a bit broad, it is/was as facist as a feudal caste order with capital punishment for protesters can be. Personally I think the hivemind of r/atheism is a religion-hipster, calling out world religions on their anti-scientific actions is okay but buddhism is just a peaceful philosophy which is totally compatible with science. Hence the treatment as "his holiness", after all look at this adorable guy with the friendly face, I bet what he says is completely true despite the fact that he has changed his opinions more than once.

[–]mrrobopuppy -3 points-2 points ago

I thought I was the only one who knew this! You know you are a terrible leader when communist China is better to your people than you were.

[–]covertwalrus 1 point2 points ago

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, seems like an okay dude, although he is the leader of the Tibetan government in exile rather than actually ruling Tibet.

[–]larg3-p3nis 1 point2 points ago

Not this shit again!

[–]mksmothers 1 point2 points ago

This guy is a mixed bag. On one hand he is the epitome of tolerance, on the other he is in charge of a bat-shit crazy organization with incredibly bizaree beliefs. I saw a documentary where he was doing a ritual over a one year old. This kid was sought out by a celibate monk who wanted to find the reincarnation of his teacher. The monk and his abbot talked with some other guy in Tawain who was "95% sure" that the boy's father name would start with "A" and he would have an extremely common syllabul in his his name. Oh yeah, the kid was totally the reincarnation because he liked the same bracelet as the dead guy. Otherwise intelligent men tested the two year old to see if he was the reincarnation by leading him to pick out the dead guy's favorite bell. The Dala Lama did some more astrology to cinch the deal.

Meanwhile in this backwater town in the middle of Tibet, the parents (who were subsistence farmers) agreed to allow the church to raise the kid so that he could grow up to be a high lama.

Tibetan Buddhism has basically been celibate men who spent a ton of time meditating and performing rituals to appease gods owning all the land, while the rest of the country lives in abject poverty. And you know who was at the top of this food pyramid: the Dala Lama.

[–]Iamspamable 3 points4 points ago

What the hell is up with these comments? What the hell has Buddhism and the Lama ever done to stir up this much shit from you guys? I'm sorry, but this is some of the worst I've ever seen on this subreddit, random facts without any back-up being thrown out of nowhere, I feel like I'm in /r/politics right now. Chill for Christ's sake.

[–]TheWanderingJew 0 points1 point ago

What the hell has Buddhism and the Lama ever done to stir up this much shit from you guys?

One can debate for ages whether it's cause or effect. In the same way that you can argue about the relation of homophobia and christianity. But there's legions of practicing buddhists out there who glorify the suffering of others, or refuse to come to their aid. With the stated belief that if they weren't paying a supernatural debt that they deserved, they wouldn't be experiencing it.

It shouldn't take that many instances of people looking down on starving children to evaluate things in a different light.

Well, that and the religion as a whole does preach supernatural beliefs and superstitions. Even in the west there's been cases where researchers have been chastised and shunned for neurological research which had even the slightest implication of a totally biological explanation for personality and consciousness.

[–]Mediotheca 0 points1 point ago

Comments such as OP don't deserve much merit. We're not used to seeing them from most organized religions because most organized religions make impossible claims.

In this example the Dalai Lama says what could never be denied by rational people. Easy karma, maybe, but not one worth attention; it's true no matter what the religious leader believes, so why draw attention.

[–]ddotodot 2 points3 points ago

In this example the Dalai Lama says what could never be denied by rational people

I think the reason this passage resonates with Americans, in particular, is because here in these United States, we see people we consider to be "rational" - parents, friends, coworkers, etc. - all functional adults, who would not agree with this statement (hence creationism - the SCIENCE is wrong, not the BIBLE). So while /r/atheism may think this is just a trite thought, Americans may be blown away by the fact that there is a religious philosophy that makes room for science.

[–]Antares42 1 point2 points ago

a religious philosophy that makes room for science.

Sure, better than saying "whenever religion and science contradict, science is by definition wrong", but he's still putting the burden of proof on the wrong side.

"I'll retract whatever you can disprove" is a step in the right direction, but still allows a fuck ton of unfalsifiable bullshit to persist.

[–]Iamspamable -1 points0 points ago

Because he's probably one of the first religious leaders to take such an initiative, to actually be willing to change his own faith if facts are shown to his face. That's something very impressive, as most christians have settled with their own faith and will never change their views no matter the cause or reason. I must agree that so far it is only a claim, although a claim that none has ever declared before within his line.

[–]Dravonic 4 points5 points ago

His Holiness? I thought this was r/atheism?

[–]beatle42 0 points1 point ago

It's more of a title, one would still be expected to refer to Queen Elizabeth as "Your Majesty" even if one is not British. I think a similar vein applies here.

[–]Bryaxis 2 points3 points ago

Scumbag Dalai Lama:

Says that any part of Buddhism that's falsified by science should adapt

Neglects to mention how much of Buddhism is unfalsifiable nonsense

[–]nismos14270r 0 points1 point ago

I'd like to once again point out that Tibetan Buddhism is just that, TIBETAN Buddhism. There are many different forms Buddhism all over the world, just because Tibetan Buddhism is the most well known in the west does not make it the defacto authority.

[–]The_Little_Asian 3 points4 points ago

and that is why, my friends, buddhism has my utmost respect

[–]123American 2 points3 points ago

Westerners think Buddhism is cool because they pick and choose what they like about it and follow some rehashed watered down version of it.

Most have never been to India, and even more think it originated in china.

In the end, it is just a religion, meant to make people conform to some set of principles.

More importantly, the Dalai Lama is a political leader. Don't be fooled into thinking he is some poor old nice guy who got to where he is by random chance.

[–]Tysander 1 point2 points ago

I do have a problem with this statement though. Its not the job of science to prove Buddhism to be wrong, its the job of Buddhism to prove their hypothesis. If a hypothesis has no proof, it has no ground and if people still "believe in it" anyway its called religion. O,ö

[–]tmgproductions 0 points1 point ago

Anyone else see the major problem in this? One of Buddhism's major tennants is "your truth is good for you, and mine is good for me", ya know the whole anti-conflict view. BUT, we know from science that the law of non-contradiction shows that there can only be one truth. Therefore Buddhism needs to change, I guess.

[–]Bliss86 0 points1 point ago

There can only be one real truth, but people can have different personal believes, that aren't necessarily true (or can be shown as true), but still have positive effects for them.

People might have a beliefs that are unsupportable, but as long as it is good for them, let them have it. We are telling children all kind of untrue things:Animal heaven, Santa, Tooth fairy and so on.

[–]Das_Maechtig_Fuehrer 0 points1 point ago

amazing.

[–]christgoldman -1 points0 points ago

What a tool. It is not the job of science to prove things wrong. Scientists don't wake up in the morning, throw open the blinds, and say, "I wonder whose beliefs I'll prove wrong today!" The purpose of science is not to prove negatives. The purpose of science is to figure out a plausible explanation for natural phenomena and then prove those explanations right.

This smug tool isn't wise. This quote isn't inspirational or powerful. This is the same thing as a creationist proudly squawking, "Well you can't prove there isn't a God!" We're just so absolutely ignorant of Eastern cultures in the Western world that we can't even realize that speck of obviousness.

But the thing that steams me most about r/atheism's periodic Dalai Lama ass-kissing is that the Dalai Lama's publicity, every single bit of it, is not about making the world a better place or about spreading reason and enlightenment. It's about returning to power as the sovereign ruler of Tibet, where the poor would once again, as they have been for centuries before, become the chattel property of the Dalai Lama and the Lama class. He had a nation of slaves and China, in one of the few great acts they've ever done, took it from him and emancipated those slaves. Now we're so blinded by anti-communism and Eastern mysticism that we're letting the world's largest advocate for slavery and heir to a bullshit ideological throne of slaveholdership gallivant around like he's the wisest man on the fucking planet. Bullshit! Bullshit! Grade-A spiritualistic, nonsensical, irrational, dehumanizing, fucking bullshit!

[–]Zexks 0 points1 point ago

Didn't read very carefully did you. He said 'If'. As in IF someday science discovers something, NOT INTENTIONALLY, that makes one of their beliefs factually, test-ably, and reproducibly inaccurate, then their beliefs will change. Nothing about: "GO PROVE US WRONG SCIENCE I DARE YOU!!" as you are insinuating. Kind of like the belief in a young earth, until the discovery of plate tectonics which many western religious followers CHOOSE TO IGNORE. He is saying they will not IGNORE THEM AS CURRENT YOUNG EARTHER'S AND OTHER FUNDIE FANATICS DO TODAY IN THE WEST.

[–]takemehomeimdrunk -1 points0 points ago

For the love of heavens stop reposting this. I have it memorized now.

[–]tkdandrew23 1 point2 points ago

it is not the responsibility of science to prove the beliefs of buddhism are wrong. He is the leader of his religion and he needs to prove his beliefs right.

[–]johnny107 0 points1 point ago

Read the Bardo Thodol and tell me with a straight face that shit is "scientific"

[–]rasputine -1 points0 points ago

I must have misread the image, I thought it suggested that if there was a specific point of discord, that science would be taken as correct. I didn't realize it actually said "Every single detail of our religion is based 100% on testable science."

[–]Softice4 -2 points-1 points ago

Buddhism is not so bad. But I can't love the Mosquitos. Specially when they bite me

[–]Fissak -1 points0 points ago

Wrong religion.

[–]Softice4 0 points1 point ago

Sorry then. I read only two books about Buddhism. Probably you know better.

[–]Fissak 0 points1 point ago

My apologies. I thought you were refrencing a certain sect of monks who value the lives of all things to the point of brushing their path before they walk.

[–]whatevesbro 0 points1 point ago

Wasn't Tibet a fucked up theocracy?

[–]whatevesbro -4 points-3 points ago

Damn, is this r/atheism or r/ILovetheDalaiLama. Get this shit out of here. Mods!