Thoughts on Buddhism?

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Johnathan Graham's picture
Thoughts on Buddhism?

I view Buddhism as one of the only "Religions" that I accept. Buddhism actually includes science behind it, and uses scientific studies to support their claims (EX. Study on grey matter association with meditation). So I'd like to get your views on this "Religion". I don't really consider it a religion in a sense its more on a philosophical basis, but I'd like to hear your views on some questions as well!

1. Do you like the ideal behind Buddhism (Meditation, etc)

2. Do you think that Buddhism has been inhibiting to humanity?

3.Would you consider being Buddhist(Mind you, people can be atheistic with Buddhist beliefs, one of my close friends went to Tibet to study and identifies himself as so).

4.Do you view Buddhism as a valid Religion?

5.What religion do you think is more valid than Buddhism?

Thank's for your insight and participation in the thread! Have a nice day my fellow Religious pals, or my Godless Heathens!

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Frrank's picture
Buddhism is 500 years older

Buddhism is 500 years older than Christianity so your claim that if 'modern science' is behind Buddhism that is incidental.

1. The ideal behind Buddhism is not meditation. Meditation, like prayer, is simply a means to an end. In this case of Buddhism, meditation leads to enlightenment. This is an important distinction. One must meditate with their goal in mind...too many modern Westerners think meditation is some type of end in itself; and it is true that even a relatively aimless meditation can lead to be a more relaxed state of existence; still, meditation by itself is on the end of Buddhism.

2. When you ask if Buddhism has been 'inhibiting to humanity' that is a really loaded question. I am going to assume you want to know if we think Buddhism has held back scientific and technological progress. Well, considering most of the Buddhist Far East was in a medieval state into the 20th century, one might say yes. But this is not mark against Buddhism.

3. I am a Westerner, so no I would not consider being Buddhist. Different religions are sent to different peoples for a reason. The average Westerner only misunderstands Buddhism...besides, one can get everything they need from Christianity; and if you are looking merely for something exotic (lets be honest, a lot of young Westerners are) Orthodox Christianity could fit that bill pretty well, while still being relatively easily understood by someone raised in the West. As to Buddhism being atheistic, it would be better to refer to it as non-theistic. Basically, you have the Personal God, and the Godhead (Godhead is mentioned in King James version of Genesis). The Personal God rises out of the 'ocean of impersonal consciousness' that is the Godhead, though He participates fully in the Godhead. It is kind of like the Trinity. The Personal God and the Godhead are one and yet not one. Anyways, Abrahamic religions focus on the Personal God, Buddhism on the Godhead...Hinduism makes room for both.

Since Buddhists focus on the impersonal Godhead this makes Buddhism seem atheistic to many Westerners who are used to hearing God talked about in personal terms.

4. A 'valid' or 'Orthodox' religion has both esoteric rites and teachings for the elite and exoteric rites and teachings for the common man. Buddhism has both of these and is therefore (like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, & Taoism/Confucianism) one of the surviving 'Orthodox' religions.

5. If Buddhism is a valid religion than there is no such thing as a 'more valid' religion. Each religion contains within itself all the means necessary for the people to whom it is directed.

Hope this helps, Frank

Frrank's picture
*In number 1, I meant to say

*In number 1, I meant to say meditation is not the end of Buddhism.

Johnathan Graham's picture
Hello Frank! Glad I could

Hello Frank! Glad I could receive your feedback on this topic! You provided alot for me to analyze and look at! I'd like to clear up, I used meditation as an example of a practice, not an absolute end, just was at school and could not list alot of other examples! Also, I meant that Modern science is Involved with Buddhist acts! I worded my thread wrong and just wanted to clear that up with you!

Appreciate your insight!

Frrank's picture


I am still not sure what you mean when you say "modern science is involved with Buddhist acts".

Though materialistic science, being only concerned with the accidental material nature of things, as opposed to their non-material essence, is pretty limited in what it can tell us about religion; perhaps materialistic science can point us to religion by what it cannot tell us.

Personally, I will admit that when one gets down to the 'nuts and bolts' of physics and such, I am relatively ignorant. I am rather a student (by no means a 'master') of traditional metaphysics....but then the materialist scientists are ignorant of traditional metaphysics, so there you go, our ignorance is complementary.

noznoze's picture
Like you John I consider

Like you John I consider myself a Buddhist, and as what I've found out over the years, depending on what one's level of consciousness both in Tibet where it started, and over here in the west, it's both a religion and not a religion. Sorry to say that, but the perception of it is as important, if not more important than the belief itself.
There's a good portion of humanity that's so scared shitless of the existential questions that come up to us both consciously and unconsciously, that it's easier to hide behind the deity dou jour to relieve themselves of the responsibility to deal with their own anxiety.
As for me I'm agnostic, not wanting to have anything to do with what we westerners might call the 'religious' nature of it. Sidhartha Gutama did live, so that's got one up on Christianity which can't prove that Jesus Christ existed, so that by itself gives it a shit load more of credibility. That, and having had read as much as I'm able to about it, tells me it's got precepts that are worth it for the one existence since we all live only once.
Anything that'll help one get thru this life which helps you cope with all the shitty situations one will eventually encounter and not produce neurosis and the fallout from that, is worth its weight in gold.

Frrank's picture
Buddhism started in India.

Buddhism started in India. Siddhartha was an Indian prince.

As to the existence of Jesus...there was a period of a few decades when scholars some tried to prove that He never existed, but even among skeptics the consensus now is that He did exist. Look up Bart Ehrman.

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you were to ask me if I

If you were to ask me if I thought Jesus existed, it would be very important to ask which Jesus you meant:

If you mean:

A religious adventurer name named Yeshua.

Who lived in Palestine around 0CE +/- 100 years.

Who met a sticky end.

-I would likely agree he probably existed. I'd go so far as to agree that probably more than one person with those attributes existed.
If you mean:

a man named Yeshua

Who born in Bethlehem to a virgin mother who had traveled there for the purpose of a census taken in 6 BCE.
Who was born in Bethlehem to a virgin mother who lived in Bethlehem in 0CE.

Who was born to Joseph, the son of Jacob.
Who was born to Joseph, the son of Heli.

Who was the son of man.
Who was also the son of god.
Who was also god.
Who was also the holy spirit.

Who was sacrificed by himself, to himself, to create a path of forgiveness for mankind, because a man and woman swiped a fruit 4000 years earlier.
Who rose from the grave 3 days later, undoing the sacrifice.

Who we are told is the most important person in history.
Who is not mentioned in any contemporary sources.

-Yeah, I have my doubts that guy ever existed.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Jesus is a literal creation

Jesus is a literal creation

If there was a guy names yashua then he had nothing to do with the Jesus of the story. The story might have used his name, that is all.
Just like the Jack and Jill are real names but used in a story.

Jesus is entirely literal creation.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.