Why does buddhism get a 'free pass' from atheists?

Buddhism was originally a purely atheistic, nihilistic philosophy.

Because it has no impact on their lives.

Depends on the Hindu school. In theistic traditions Brahman is a lower, impersonal manifestation of God as well as the self. In atheistic schools it's merely the self.

>buddhism
>nihilistic
fuck off

>"We're all like, basically the same so we don't fight and instead just sit around and smoke weed and sodomize each other all day"

Because Buddha never claimed to be God, died, and stayed dead?

Why would there be abuddhists?

They're told there's no gods in Budhism (which is technically not true) and call it good enough. "Atheism" in the west is mostly anti-christianity, and therefore everything can get a pass if it's different enough or it seems to be.

It literally is.

it also gets a pass from neopagans even though its an indian religion which wiped out the animist religions of south east asia. along with hinduism and zoroastrianism which replaced the indo european religion.

What is nihilistic about buddhism?

>the literal objective is to stop to exist

Buddhists don't tend to go around proselytizing and knocking at my door early in the morning.

Because it's 'progressive' in their eyes.

ashoka did tho

>Has an objective
>Nihilistic
Do you know what nihilism is?
Also, that is not the end goal for buddhists

no
the obective is to reach nirvana, to stop reincarnation

Because buddhists are hardly even relevant

And what is nirvana?

grunge religion for plebs

A pretty good band who broke up after the singer was murdered.

buddhism doesn´t have a personal God but an abstract concept of deity

>Buddhism itself is full of faith-based teachings
atheism is as well

>In atheistic schools it's merely the self.
Do you mean Carvaka or Nastika?

stop exist what?

You

(((You)))

The escape from Samsara, the cycle of birth and death that has went on since existance because life is suffering. There is nothing nihilistic about it, its actually very upbeat if you think about it.

>because life is suffering
Coning from a philosophy that tries to step away from judgements, I find this rather absolute assertion confusing.

Those are not Hindu schools.

Hindu schools itself is full Astika. Within Astika hindu schools, there's atheistic and theistic interpretation of vedas. Most notably, the Advaita school is atheistic. But that is more of a "crypto-Buddhist" school.

Carvaka, Buddhism, Jain are all Nastika. They are not part of the Hindu/Vedic dimension.

If you can't make judgments on anything, then everything must be confusing for you. Shouldn't be a surprise if you get confused about whether or not to make any sort of statements.

It's because a lot of athiests are so more out of a general contrarianism to the west and what they percieve as western values and religions. They therefore largely leave Islam, Buddhism and other eastern religions alone because they are not associated with the west like Christianity is.

Some white retard finding a thin layer of Buddhism appealing does not a Buddhist make.

>nihilistic
>rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless
Are you using the word properly?

Explain

This. Buddhism, Islam and the rest are exotic and fascinating. Christianity is boring and ho hum

It's the same reason a bored housewife dreams of running off with a mysterious foreigner. Fascination with the outlandish, stemming from a very mundane mind

>Islam
>Eastern religion
Technicality aside this one baffles me. Why do so many atheists give freaking Islam a pass but not Christianity, if their atheism really isn't anything but a strict rebellion against Christian teachings? I know that there are obviously a number of atheists that don't defend Islam but it's striking how many do.

>if their atheism really isn't anything but a strict rebellion against Christian teachings?

But it is. Many atheists in the west are just edgy teenagers rebelling against dad. Also, something about Muslims being seen as oppressed probably has something to do with it, as if they aren't some of the most skilled oppressors history has seen.

Oh, I like little judgements. 'Weather is nice today.' That way, when I get proved wrong because I forgot my umbrella, it's not an existential crisis. It's those pesky X IS Y judgements that I'm leary of.

LIFE IS SUFFERING just seems like such a Manichean statement for what appears to me an otherwise very flexible philosophy.

The Persian atheists I've met do not give Islam a pass.

Life is suffering isn't coming out of thin air.

The Buddhist religion's core is to eliminate suffering. By stating this as their goal, they have elevated suffering in this world as something of great importance to be tackled.

Now I'm not an omniscient person or god, but everyone in this life goes through suffering on daily basis whether it is emotional or physical. Suffering exists everywhere in this world and everyday. Its a key fact of life, not a matter of opinion.

It's just another case of "the grass is greener". Your foreign religion is fascinating and mysterious. My local religion is boring and mundane

A lot of things are nice until you have to live with them

Because they are mainly interested in the meditative techniques, which can be tackled secularly. Also the philosophical teachings that are accepted are usually existential in nature (unity, loss of self, will as pain, etc.), and the actual mythology is usually studied in a metaphorical way rather than a dogmatic one.

Because Buddhism is historically practiced by smart people (Asians) and consequently actually has some smart ideas along with the mystical bullshit. Atheists are simultaneously genuinely smart, and like to think of themselves as being smart. That stereotype, the ugly fat guy who likes Rick and Morty? He with his ~110 IQ is still smarter than a good chunk of the white population, a significant chunk of the asian population, and certainly smarter than most people of middle eastern, hispanic or black extraction. This is precisely what I mean when I say that atheists actually are smarter.

The beta/quasi-nihilistic ideas of Buddhism sit well with the atheist worldview, once stripped of their mystical trappings.

The other attractive thing about Buddhism, as it is portrayed in the west, is that it generally lacks an asshole god, which is the other main thing that (rightly) activates atheists' almonds about the other mainstream religions.

to add to The Buddhist position on life being suffering is matter of conscious effort to fix this issue. By conscious, I meant a hard look at reality in all its form. During Buddha's time (and now), people were suffering and they are ignorant of the causes of suffering. Many would pray to the gods or spirits to come help them cure their problem. Buddha and some sramana (ascetics) contemplated on what causes suffering. Jainism found that suffering was caused by karma or rather simply by existing and doing things, you create suffering for yourself and others. Jainist philosophy is thus to avoid harming any being. Buddha's similar in this regard except he gives a rather plain step by step instructions and breaks down the issue of suffering.

This, but it's more like "our grass is less green", mainly due to the fact that when you are inside a religion you can both see its contradictions and you can actually talk about them consciously (given that you have actually read and studied the scriptures).
On the contrary, very few europeans can actually talk about Islam without being completely clueless. This happens because Islam is grounded in a myriad of national identities, familiar habits and specific aesthetics, meaning that while I somewhat know how Spanish Christians behave, I have absolutely no idea about how Algerian muslims percieve their own religion.

Of course Im not taking the idpol route, I don't think only muslims can talk about Islam, yet to do so it is requires a great deal of preparwtion that very few scholars and travellers possess. Because of this people will be more prone to excuse Islam (the logic is "I don't understand it, so I have no right to be radically critical about it, unless it'a about shit like beheadings") while being at the same time extremely critical on every small nuance of Christianity (on the contrary this happens because the critic is not clueless in this context).

So the core concept is better to have never lived at all rather than to know joy and suffering? Not enlightened enough for that yet then.

>Asshole God
>died for your sins
Choose one, heretic.

Quite the contrary, the point is to attain peace.

You need only look out from the motionless space of intrinsic knowledge at all
experience, illusory like the reflection of the moon in water, to know the
impossibility of dividing appearances from emptiness.

In a state of Knowledge there is no separation of samsara and nirvana. Look
out from the motionless space of intrinsic knowledge at all experience,
illusory like the reflection in a mirror, and no matter what manifests it can
never be tasted, its existence can never be proved. In this dimension samsara
and nirvana do not exist and everything is the dharmakaya.

>Buddhism is historically practiced by Greco-Bactrians
fixd

Again, sorry, not enlightened enough to understand that phrase. I suspect it's a bit more in depth than a constant state of "This works too."

I wouldn't call advaita atheistic

It's about peace of mind and soul, what is there to understand? The results of buddhism are supposed to be really practical, and mostly regards the well-being of the religious individual.
I thing in BGE Nietzsche talks about how inherently egoist is Buddhism: his main point is that Buddhist monks know for a fact that for them to reach Enlightment there have to be other people who live outside of the Buddhist path working for them. Also the fact that for the Buddhist his priority is his pain, rather than the pain of his fellow man.

Well they are from the west so obviously they'd be more familiar with a western religion. People who criticize Islam (like internet right wingers) end up looking pretty uninformed and amateurish on the topic desu.

Watch sargon get absolutely wrecked by Michael Brooks . Even putting aside brooks' attitude, sargon looks totally uninformed . That's what one looks like criticizing things he knows very little about

>m.youtube.com/watch?v=sUD1RvFWzeE

Better question, why do judaism get a free pass from (((atheists)))?

Not sure where you're getting that from but okay.

Change is part of the world. The suffering comes when we expect things to not change but they change. Both suffering and joyousness are part of that too.

However being joyful isn't really a problem in life. Suffering is so, its a problem for everyone. So the Buddhist core is simply to solve for suffering.

Now ofcourse there are people out there who thinks suffering is good. For people who live for suffering, thinks suffering is deserved, want to cause suffering, enjoy suffering, and so on, Buddhism doesn't cater to them. Buddhism is mainly for people who realize suffering is somehow a great problem of humanity.

>this doesn't answer the question about joyousness
It doesn't, but then again Buddhism isn't about how to be joyous or how to be "happy" as some newage hippies market it as. Buddhism is about solving suffering. If you see no problem with you winning a million dollar and being paralyzed full body, go right ahead. If you see no problem finding a quarter on the ground and pricking yourself with a broken glass as you pick it up, you have no use for Buddhism.

That's becauae he's clearly talking about your classical westener being edgy, not some middle easteners in Tehran and LA mad at Khomeini.

Judaism is an ethnoreligion that represents the culture of an entire people, it would be racist. Christianity and islam are not ethnoreligions, they are supraethnic ideologies that impress themselves on top of people, they do not constitute an intrinsic ethnic identity, and have more in common with a political ideology than they do a religion like judaism or native american religions.

Also a godless modern religion.

Islam is de facto an ethnoreligion in the west.

But the Sanskrit word for universe is cognate with Bhraman. And Bhraman is never seen as acting or having any will unlike the Christian God or Hindu deities.

I think an atheistic reading of Hinduism/Buddhism can easily be made.

Buddhism is arguably the most scientific "religion" in history, even official scientists have argued for this. It is the foremost faith that believes that we are all interconnected in some way through our atomic structures. It basically theorized the concept of atoms thousands of years before they were actually conceived as we know it today in science. Great philosophers who are typically liked by atheists like Nietzsche have also called Buddhism stuff like the "most successful religion" in principle.

Also reminder that Buddhism and Christianity are the world's greatest religions/philosophies.

upbeat!? Buddhist philosophy is born from the idea that living sucks SOOOOO MUCH, that annihilation is preferable. So preferable, in fact, that it must be earned through the herculean effort of multiple lives.

>If you see no problem with you winning a million dollar and being paralyzed full body, go right ahead.

Obviously no one is going to be happy with being a paraplegic, or say, starving. But telling someone in either situation that their desire to feed themselves is the root of their unhappiness seems to be ignoring the obvious, not to mention rather insensitive.

Maybe targeting the root physical causes of their suffering first, and then squashing the ego would be more effective at solving the suffering issue in those cases.

>living sucks SOOOOO MUCH, that annihilation is preferable
Not really. I think the concept is that the never ending cycle of rebirth sucks not life itself. In life there is suffering and pleasure. But the atman is kind of done with the pleasure part since it knows that all pleasure ultimately leads to suffering too and just wants things to stop. Our body on the other hand is only existing for the first time and want to continue doing so since it isn't jaded. The aim of buddhism isn't to kill yourself but to make sure you don't have to put your atman through this one more time.

>Why does Atheism get a 'free pass' from atheists?

>Atheism itself is full of faith-based teachings.

ftfy.

Atheism is NOT a religious, it's a wonderful relationship with Atheos Inexplicibas.

Are you retarded?

>faith-based teachings
Are not religious teachings.

for the easy one, you like any religious person has faith god exists, you simply are the reverse, you have faith he doesn't exist. To say you know he doesn't exist is simply intellectually dishonest as you know there is no real evidence either way and your reasoning is atypical.

Onto the next point.

Say you read pic related, what do you do? You take it for truth, you have FAITH that Hawkins is telling you the truth, or attempting to, the only way for you to know is to go out and test the things inside these books, but you do not, you take it at face value.

You are so much different and better ;^).

RELATIONSHIP not RELIGION ok? Praise Atheos

>Buddhism is arguably the most scientific "religion"
Don't put religion in quotation marks. Buddhism is a religion just like any other and is filled with dogmatic teachers who preach "unscientific" facts.
>even official scientists have argued for this
The fuck is an "official scientist"? Give me some names.
>It is the foremost faith that believes that we are all interconnected in some way through our atomic structures.
Actually it believes we're connected through what is a loose equivalent of the soul but okay retard.
>It basically theorized the concept of atoms thousands of years before they were actually conceived as we know it today in science.
Greek philosophers and other groups also did this, not too impressive desu.
>Great philosophers who are typically liked by atheists like Nietzsche have also called Buddhism stuff like the "most successful religion" in principle.
Define successful.
>Also reminder that Buddhism and Christianity are the world's greatest religions/philosophies.
>religions/philosophies
PICK ONE

Buddhism is a religion by the way not a philosophy. End this meme pls.

Not believing in God implies a negation of God.
Agnostic atheism my ass.
I don't believe there is a tiger outside my door is the same as claiming it's non-existence.
I can't tell if there is a tiger outside my door means there's a 50/50 chance there is a tiger outside my door.
So do agnostic atheists half believe in God? That hardly qualifies them as atheists in my book.

Because, like most people, atheists aren't aware of all the properties of Buddhism.
I'd imagine the fairly peaceful reputation Buddhism has is also a part of it (which again, shows that people aren't aware of the "non-peaceful" Buddhists).

>But the atman is kind of done with the pleasure part since it knows that all pleasure ultimately leads to suffering too and just wants things to stop.

Nice try, atman, but the great cosmic joke is that Mr. Bones' Wild Ride never ends.

>But telling someone in either situation that their desire to feed themselves is the root of their unhappiness seems to be ignoring the obvious, not to mention rather insensitive.
Of course. I'm not a buddhist so my words are at best, blunt characterization of Buddhism. Buddhist themselves use more colorful languages to soften the blow, so to speak. Afterall, whats the use in causing more suffering with cold hard truths that are at best insensitive.

There's however a good buddhist story about Buddha being "insensitive" about the hard fact of life. Link related. Supposedly a grieving mother of a recently dead child goes to Buddha and asks if he could bring her sweet child back to life. Buddha says he will but she must first find a household whom have not seen death in the family. Needlessly to say, she understood her position. That's bit of a classical Buddhist story. Later Buddhism colors it more.

>buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/bs-s03a.htm

>So do agnostic atheists half believe in God? That hardly qualifies them as atheists in my book.
How hard is it? An agnostic says there is no evidence either way so they are sitting on the fence.

They both believe and don't believe in god's existence as god's existence right now is in a quantum superposition. There is no way we can know until we do, so for all intensive purposes it's both.

I will never understand this sentiment. There is not a single atheist I know or have even heard of that gives Islam a pass. Islam is just a shitty of a religion as Christianity is, I do not give it a "pass."

I don't give Buddhism shit because it is largely irrelevant where I live. It would be like a candidate for a presidential debate giving shit to the green party. It's just not a priority.

>technically not true

Explain

>but the great cosmic joke is that Mr. Bones' Wild Ride never ends.
That's actually a great analogy.

It's really fucking simple.

I don't know if any gods exist or don't exist. That's agnostic.
I don't think any gods exist. That's atheist.
Knowledge and belief are two different things and get two different words.

How about give a counter argument instead of an impudent middle school comeback?
The goal of original Buddhism (Pali canon) is Nirvana. The meaning of Nirvana is to snuff out the candle of consciousness. Brahminical teachings are that
1. life is a fire.
2. feed that fire (through sacrifice).
This leads to the eternal cycle of death and rebirth, life feeding on death. One answer to this is given by Jainism, where leaving this cycle behind requires literally starving yourself to death. So the cycle of suffering is interpreted materialistically, thus requires a physical death by fasting to quench. Buddhism spiritualizes this, with the goal not being to literally kill yourself but kill self consciousness and your identity as a separate entity. In Buddhism, the mind is not the source of consciousness, but it gives a frame with which to focus consciousness. Eliminating that frame is the goal of the doctrine. The goal of Buddhism is negation. It is nihilistic to the core, denial of death and life. This does not imply malevolence, for a negative meaning is still a meaning.

I meant more that Buddhism seems to be ignoring that some suffering has material causes or can be easily resolved, in comparison to more intractable problems like 'how do I cope with inescapable death'.

Not all suffering is caused by the ego.

I think people think Islam gets a pass because Atheists in the west don't really know how to mock it the same they do Christianity.

It's like this
youtube.com/watch?v=QJHzwiYG8bM

That's semantics.
You don't believe in something. That means from your perspective you recognize it is not there.
If you claim there are equiprobable odds of God existing or not existing, that implies a 50% belief in God, meaning you aren't an atheist anymore.

>If you claim there are equiprobable odds of God existing or not existing, that implies a 50% belief in God, meaning you aren't an atheist anymore.
And that's not semantics?

Get the fuck out of here you stupid hippy. You know nothing. Buddhism is inherently pessimistic, "all life is suffering" is the first Noble Truth. The only way out is to renounce it altogether.

"Ego" is the main case that Buddhism uses, mainly because the Buddhist case is we perceive the world through "ego" and as such, to treat the problem of suffering requires examining the world through ego.

>I can't tell if there is a tiger outside my door means there's a 50/50 chance there is a tiger outside my door.

If I buy a lottery ticket is there a 50/50 chance I will win?

It's a little of this, although I note that both Christians and non-Christians in the West are seriously ignorant of Christian theology, history, and practice. I mean, think about how many American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation, or that Jesus is the consubstantial, coeternal Son of God, etc.

I agree that it's a "our grass is less green" situation, but I think it's more of a cultural thing. We pick out all the flaws in the people and outward social activities of our institutions. Not having lived in Buddhist societies, we haven't witnessed or accumulated all of THEIR cultural garbage. Our stereotypes of Buddhist life are sterile, mediated through the likes of Alan Watts, Thomas Merton, or Pema Chodron, and spun to make Eastern traditions more palatable to us. I've heard many stories of Western Buddhist converts going to become disciples at temples in the East and discovering to their dismay that Buddhism is nothing at all like the Happy Meal version they were fed back home.

>That means from your perspective you recognize it is not there.
It's not hard, man. An agnostic says "We cannot know anything about the existence of gods." An atheist says "Positive belief in gods is unwarranted." Therefore, I say that I know nothing of the existence of gods, and think that belief in them is unwarranted. What do you think we should call an atheist who says "I know gods don't exist?" I call him a gnostic atheist.

>If you claim there are equiprobable odds of God existing or not existing, that implies a 50% belief in God, meaning you aren't an atheist anymore.

I don't understand why you're giving odds. I can't give odds for a god's existence, I don't have any data for it at all.

Not only that, but sometimes Buddhism as it's lived out seems downright fatalistic. I've had Asian friends in high school whose grades were consistently worse than their brothers and sisters, and were told, "well, you must have been a real shit in a past life. You're fucked, try to hide away and not embarrass your family too much, maybe you'll do better in the next life." It's a seriously fucked up way to live.

>I think people think Islam gets a pass because Atheists in the west don't really know how to mock it the same they do Christianity.
Bullfuckingshit

You just have to site the silly prohibitions of that religion in addition to the superstitious shit it has.