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

>>3185575
Depends which type of Buddhism.

>>3185575
Well, most atheists ARE Buddhists, so obviously they're not going to contradict themselves.

They like to leave out that the part of escaping samsara which makes it a Dharmaic religion and therefore Top Brahma if they ever imply there are no gods.

>>3185604
>brahman is a god
sorry but no

>>3185609
Ultimate reality = Godlike force.
Christians believe their God is the ultimate reality just as much as the Dharmaic Faith's believe that Brahman is the force which decides all life.

>>3185618
no, you are misundestandering the idea of brahman. you should really read up on "hindu metaphysics", it's an interesting topic but i cant really give an adequate summary here. christian/abrahamic deity is more like ishvara

>>3185575
Because atheists are stupid. They literally believe that any religion that isn't Christianity/Abrahamic is "There's no good and evil bro, there's nothing to worry about" and "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"

>>3185575
Probably because it's not as relevant in western society.

>>3185575

It's almost like a big chunk of atheists are just angry at Christianity and know very little about other religions....

>>3185575
Buddhism was originally a purely atheistic, nihilistic philosophy.

Because it has no impact on their lives.

>>3185627
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.

>>3188078
>buddhism
>nihilistic
fuck off

File: What did this nigger just say.png (71KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 251x251px

>>3186065
>"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"

>>3185575
Because Buddha never claimed to be God, died, and stayed dead?

Why would there be abuddhists?

>>3185575
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.

>>3188396
It literally is.

>>3185575
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.

>>3188446
What is nihilistic about buddhism?

>>3188451
>the literal objective is to stop to exist

>>3185575
Buddhists don't tend to go around proselytizing and knocking at my door early in the morning.

>>3185575
Because it's 'progressive' in their eyes.

>>3188458
ashoka did tho

>>3188456
>Has an objective
>Nihilistic
Do you know what nihilism is?
Also, that is not the end goal for buddhists

>>3188456
no
the obective is to reach nirvana, to stop reincarnation

>>3185575
Because buddhists are hardly even relevant

>>3188471
And what is nirvana?

>>3188491
grunge religion for plebs

>>3188491
A pretty good band who broke up after the singer was murdered.

>>3185575
buddhism doesn´t have a personal God but an abstract concept of deity

>>3185575
>Buddhism itself is full of faith-based teachings
atheism is as well

>>3188244
>In atheistic schools it's merely the self.
Do you mean Carvaka or Nastika?

>>3188456
stop exist what?

>>3188530
You

>>3188565
(((You)))

>>3188491
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.

>>3188604
>because life is suffering
Coning from a philosophy that tries to step away from judgements, I find this rather absolute assertion confusing.

>>3188521
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.

>>3188644
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.

>>3185575
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.

>>3185578
Some white retard finding a thin layer of Buddhism appealing does not a Buddhist make.

>>3188078
>nihilistic
>rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless
Are you using the word properly?

Explain

>>3188666

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

>>3188666
>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.

>>3188681
>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.

>>3188659
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.

>>3188681
The Persian atheists I've met do not give Islam a pass.

>>3188705
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.

>>3188681

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

>>3185575
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.

>>3185575

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.

>>3188705
to add to >>3188718

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.

>>3188735
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).

>>3188718
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.

>>3188753
>Asshole God
>died for your sins
Choose one, heretic.

>>3188799
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.

>>3188753
>Buddhism is historically practiced by Greco-Bactrians
fixd

>>3188811
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."

>>3188654
I wouldn't call advaita atheistic

>>3188822
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.

>>3188681
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

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

>>3185575
Better question, why do judaism get a free pass from (((atheists)))?

>>3188799
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.

>>3188710
That's becauae he's clearly talking about your classical westener being edgy, not some middle easteners in Tehran and LA mad at Khomeini.

>>3188890

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.

>>3188890
Also a godless modern religion.

>>3188905
Islam is de facto an ethnoreligion in the west.

>>3185627
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.

>>3188604
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.

>>3188901
>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.

>>3188936
>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.

>>3185575
>Why does Atheism get a 'free pass' from atheists?

>Atheism itself is full of faith-based teachings.

ftfy.

>>3188964
Atheism is NOT a religious, it's a wonderful relationship with Atheos Inexplicibas.

File: article-2401693-1B73FB85000005DC-808_306x423.jpg (33KB, 306x423px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 306x423px

>>3188971
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 ;^).

>>3188986
RELATIONSHIP not RELIGION ok? Praise Atheos

File: are you prepared for carnage.jpg (103KB, 1094x926px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1094x926px

>>3188919
>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.

>>3185575
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).

>>3188959
>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.

>>3188948
>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.

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

>>3189010
>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.

>>3188681
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.

>>3188426

>technically not true

Explain

>>3189024
>but the great cosmic joke is that Mr. Bones' Wild Ride never ends.
That's actually a great analogy.

>>3189010
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.

>>3188396
How about give a counter argument instead of an impudent middle school comeback?
>>3188673
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.

>>3189026
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.

>>3189034
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJHzwiYG8bM

>>3189049
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.

>>3189065
>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?

>>3188604
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.

>>3189061
"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.

>>3189010
>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?

>>3188778
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.

>>3189065
>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.

>>3189057
>>3189071
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.

>>3189064
>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.

>>3189097
This distinction between knowledge and belief goes against basic human psychology. Belief is our perception of truth. It is how you recognize that things exist. If you do not recognize the existence of something, to speak of that disbelief is to claim it is not there. To claim there is no knowing of whether or not there is a God implies a 50/50 distinction.

>>3188654
>Carvaka, Buddhism
Lokayata or materialism is a hindu school not buddhist
>nastika
Is anyone who does not believe in the vedas

>>3189109
Reading comprehension?

Also you're not making any sense. Materialism is not a hindu school. Lokayata or Cavarka is materialistic school. It is strictly non-Hindu and non-vedic.

>>3189064
>dara O brein
He isnt funny, he is a virtue signalling douche.

>>3189104
Yes it is incredibly life negating. I can't wrap my head around how some people can seriously entertain Buddhism while having read Nietzsche. The message and orientation of Western culture towards the individual, towards life, and towards death is one of affirmation. It's completely at odds with the attitude of Buddhism.

>>3189130
Page 67 Classical Indian Ethical Thought by Motilal Banarsidass.
>Of the three heterodox systems, the remaining one, the Cārvāka system, is a Hindu system."

It is considered a Hindu Tradition.

Please be a little more polite.

If you want to refute it please provide citation.

>>3189107
>This distinction between knowledge and belief goes against basic human psychology.

I disagree entirely. There's a reason that they're different words. Knowledge implies empirical evidence backing a belief, it's a subset of belief. Are you saying that believing something and knowing something is the same thing?

>>3189107
>Belief is our perception of truth.
Belief is what we intend to think. Intentionality distinguishes belief from mere thought, which is just information. It may or may not be true.

>>3189141
Probably a hindu nationalist making this claim.

>>3189177
More accurately, he's probably conflating the usage of the word Hindu as a national identity with Hindu as a religious.

Hindu in religious sense means a follower of Vedic religion.

Hindu in greater national identity encompasses all that is Indian as Hindu.

File: allyourspears.jpg (28KB, 260x179px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 260x179px

>>3189189
>>3189177
Way to prove me wrong with your assumptive nonsense.

I asked for proof, you cannot provide it. So stop with the weak conjecture.

>>3189106
Doesn't make for great comedy if there's no nuance or at least a fresh take. The kind of jokes you want can be found on sickipedia.

>>3189177
lol, if Hindu nationalists are the ones who believe that materialist thought is within the fold of Hinduism who's anyone else to say no. If the literal hardliners are the ones being inclusive the only reason you as an outsider want to be exclusive is because of your bigotry. Most Hindus even consider Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism to be part of Hinduism. I agree some of them might not want to be considered a subset of Hindu thought but that's for them to contend.

I know the Christian world has a fascination with having separate sects based on minor disagreements over texts but India has survived 3000 years of living with vastly different ways of worship without as much as a single holy war. Jews, Parsees, even Syrian Christians lived there peacefully and without persecution.

>>3189036
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Buddhist_deities

>>3189493
The problem of Hindu nationalists being inclusive is that it denies agencies to minority religions in India. Whether Buddha is an agent of Vishnu or not really matters only in Hindu major India as they have to decide whether or not to recognize minority religions and/or protect them. The religious minorities themselves in India definitely feel the snubbing by Hindu nationalists but there are more secular Indians out there who see the problem and are trying to fix this.

Still as a westerner looking at it from an outsider, we can see the difference in opinion. While in India the debate about whether or not Jainism/Buddhism/Sikh/Carvaka/etc are part of Hinduism hasn't been settled, everyone outside the world has already understood that these are all different from Hinduism. Claiming they're all Hindu isn't going to convince anyone except your own kind and the gullible.

File: IMG_0056.png (1MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 750x1334px

>ITT
>"most athiests are Buddhists"
>"atheists give Islam a pass"
>atheists are nihilists
>"why don't atheists hate ethnic Jews"
Man I thought /his/ was better than this.

>>3189539
Atheism requires you to be a nihilist.

>>3189506
>The problem of Hindu nationalists being inclusive is that it denies agencies to minority religions in India
Bullshit. Hindus respect and observe Buddha Purnima and Mahavir Jayanti. There's a reason the Dalai Lama lives in India. Jains are exempt from public nudity laws.

Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu is irrelevant. It's just a feelgood story. Most Hindus agree with the essence of the teachings of Buddha and Mahavir and Guru Nanak. They are all considered legitimate paths to God. And they are all considered as stemming from Vedic thought even if they reject some of it. The Buddha and Mahavir were very particular in stating that they wanted to reform Hinduism not start a new religion. There's also a reason Sikhs say "Deh Shiva Bar Mohe"

>The religious minorities themselves in India definitely feel the snubbing by Hindu nationalists
lol what?

>as a westerner looking at it from an outsider, we can see the difference in opinion.
That's the problem, you look at difference in opinion and declare that they two thoughts must be irreconcilable because that's what Abrahamic thought is. Looking at Indic thought through the prism of Abrahamic dogma will have you believe there are irreconcilable differences everywhere. Because in Abrahamic thought every difference is irreconcilable.

>everyone outside the world has already understood that these are all different from Hinduism.
Have they? I suppose in doing so they must have also found a way to define Hinduism. Care to enlighten me as to what they agreed on.

Atheists in Christian-majority countries care a lot more about Christianity for obvious reasons. Chinese and Mongolian commies were glad to shut down stupas and shit, I'm sure you can find plenty of atheists complaining about Buddhism in the Buddhist world, but it's just not as relevant in the west.

>>3189539
I've been here since the beginning, it's never been better than this. I genuinely don't know if it's just christposting or if people actually believe these things.

>>3189552
no, it's a logical conclusion that follows atheism. that doesn't mean all or even most atheists are nihlists. secular humanism is not nilhlist at all

>>3189506
Actually, as a westener, the most I read about hinduism the more I ask myself why we don't consider buddhism, jainism, etc. as hinduist. Or, better said, why we consider that the concept of hinduism exists at all and where are the borders of what is and what is not hindu.

>>3189506
>denies agencies to minority religions in India.
Wow way to talk out of your arse, Temples still pay taxes, none of the churches or mosques pay taxes.

>>3188401
>using the N word in your filename

>>3189608
A God is, for all intents and purposes, an organizing principle (the etymology of the word bears this out). To lack that is nihilism. A believe is only valid if it can be acted out. In that sense, most atheists aren't authentically atheists in the same way most people who profess to be religious don't do a great job of representing their actual beliefs. Secular humanists are a great example of this, they're basically Anglicans who don't attend church.

>>3189506
>While in India the debate about whether or not Jainism/Buddhism/Sikh/Carvaka/etc are part of Hinduism hasn't been settled, everyone outside the world has already understood that these are all different from Hinduism. Claiming they're all Hindu isn't going to convince anyone except your own kind and the gullible.
Just stop, stop trying to pretend you have some authority over its definition, this kind of nonsense "they all agree" blanket statements are bullshit, and I have to think you are either some jumped up white kid who has only recently found eastern faiths or you are those chinese shills who pretend to be someone else to start issues online by trolling indians or anything related to india.

'Hindu Nationalists' are not the same as western nationalists this is something those who arent hindu and never lived in india will never understand but try to impose their own views on to that inherent ignorance.

>>3189631
>Gee, it's almost like atheism isn't a belief, just a lack of one.

>>3189646
If what you lack belief in is a highest value, you are a nihilist. Your God is whatever you hold to be the organizing principle of your life.

>>3185575
The Buddha encouraged his followers to think on his teachings, question and analyze them. They're not meant to be taken purely on faith.

File: haircut.jpg (46KB, 474x496px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 474x496px

>>3189657
>Your God is whatever you hold to be the organizing principle of your life.
Wrong, God is the superstrate of the subconscious that is considered to hold the person's perception of reality from which they draw their principles.

>>3189657
>Gee, it's almost like atheism isn't an atheists highest value, just one opinion on one subject.

>>3189681
Thats one way to think of it, one that is clearly wrong because it bears not on human action. The category of "God" is extremely broad because throughout human history nearly everything has been deified.

>>3189684
Never said atheism was their highest value, that doesn't even make sense anyway. You believe in a highest value; belief itself isn't the object of value.

>>3189681
I should add: one cannot derive an ought from what is. The category of "is" derives from the nature of the world, the category of "ought" derives from God because it describes what acts on the world. If you ascribe features of the world to God, the line between "is" from "ought" collapses, and the necessity for the idea of a God disappears.

>>3189673
>The Buddha encouraged his followers to think on his teachings
This is what the west just doesn't get whenever it tries to concern itself with eastern thought. The west just doesn't get how a religion could form based on free thought. Doesn't get how you could even have a religion such as Hinduism and not have an instruction manual that comes with it. Manusmriti was held up as the organizing book of Hindu thought by the west despite the fact most Hindus considered it just another text. Even the Bhagawat Gita was propped up as "the Holy Book" of Hinduism by the west because it was Mahatma Gandhi's most revered book. Despite the fact that the Ramayana has been read by far more people and there's a tradition to read it once every year before Diwali. Vedas were made to have an exalted position (which to be fair the do have) despite the fact that all Shastras are considered equally revered.

>>3189706
You literally said "If what you lack belief in is a highest value, you are a nihilist." Are you a Christian? I'm asking because you seem like a deluded liar.

>>3189716
Thats because most westerners are autists who loose their minds when there is no Black and White explanations of religious or philosophical thought, abrahamic religions have stunted their spirituality to mere good and evil instead of understanding they are rooted in the same setting that is the perception of the mind.

>>3189706
>Thats one way to think of it, one that is clearly wrong because it bears not on human action
You cannot think without effort, you cannot have an active brain with the subconscious without being aware and using effort, it seems you are conflating the meaning of action as something that is rare.

>>3189720
You could just ask me to clarify instead of deliberately misinterpret me.
>You literally said "If what you lack belief in is a highest value, you are a nihilist."
And where in this statement do I even hint at saying "atheism is an atheists highest value? I stated the exact opposite. I argue that Atheism simply means the absence of a highest value, so to say that atheism IS a highest value is to contradict myself.

>>3189735
I said human action, not the action of the subconscious, which is more or less indistinguishable from the activity of the digestive system or the atmosphere, all of which supports conscious thought. By human action I mean that which is intentional and willful. Or else there would be no distinction between a religious ritual and any other mundane activity.

>>3189725
>>3189716
What makes someone choose a path in hinduism if literally all of them are equally valid?

>>3189635
>'Hindu Nationalists' are not the same as western nationalists this is something those who arent hindu and never lived in india will never understand but try to impose their own views on to that inherent ignorance.
Nationalism is same all around the world. Its the promotion of a united identity of a country. Whether it is intimidating minorities or killing minorities or simply claiming the minorities are simply confused Hindus, its all the same shit. Funny how you brought up chinese shills, when the Hindu nationalists are doing the same shit Chinese nationalists are doing. Han-ification of Chinese minorities is same as Hindu-fication of Indian minorities.

>this kind of nonsense "they all agree" blanket statements are bullshit
Non sense. The western world has largely been clasifying the different beliefs of the world for the last few hundred years. The fact that Hindu nationalists refuse to recognize sikhs/buddhists/jains as different from Hinduism is a Hindu nationalist problem. For the rest of the world, the encyclopedias, the general media, the education system, etc all classify them as different religions.

>>3189757
From a tradition point of view, it's going to be your parents'. From a philosophical point of view that's usually a personal journey. I doubt you could find two Hindus who've spent time on the spiritual/philosophical aspect agree on everything.

That's kind of the point, the ritual and tradition are there and you can treat them as ancestor worship, symbolism or literal magic and you'll find enough people who do all 3. Some people will consider it their aim to visit all the holy sites as a way to achieve moksha or at least heaven. Some people would consider going to temples as a waste of time and spend hours per week meditating. Some people would consider reading the texts and understanding even one of them fully as their ticket. Most wouldn't care about any of this and just stick to the tradition and ritual and making sure those are done as well as they can be and maybe fast to prove their dedication to God.

Out of the Abrahamic faiths personally I find Judaism to be the closest to Hinduism despite the huge differences. Tradition > personal feelings about G-d.

>>3189814
And all those stuff that is not related at all is the same because?

>>3189814
>Out of the Abrahamic faiths personally I find Judaism to be the closest to Hinduism
jew anon here, explain

>>3189794
What you're confused about is the difference between unification and homogenization. No Hindu Nationalist want's homogenization.

You're completely ignorant of what Hindu minorities want or how they're treated.

>For the rest of the world, the encyclopedias, the general media, the education system, etc all classify them as different religions.
No one's arguing that the west hadn't agreed on this. The contention is, that the agreement was bigoted and made with very little understanding. Any critique to this that comes from within the community is considered Hindu nationalist.

This article back in 2002 exposed the completely tone-deaf and bigoted "understanding" was being peddled in the encyclopedias for years.
http://sankrant.org/2002/09/hinduism-encarta-critique/
Luckily encarta updated their article soon after. But it will take millions of hours by people fighting against claims of Hindu nationalism to correct all the misinformation that has been spread in the name of Hinduism over the last 2 centuries.

>>3189755
>indistinguishable from the activity of the digestive system
What? No, i am sure you can feel and understand to an extent of how you digestion works, or else you will be shitting your pants which can be controlled by your own actions.
>By human action I mean that which is intentional and willful. Or else there would be no distinction between a religious ritual and any other mundane activity.
Both are complicit on repetition to be relevant, meticulous and mundane. Both have traditional way and new way both originate from the same thought. Action.

>>3189794
>he fact that Hindu nationalists refuse to recognize sikhs/buddhists/jains as different from Hinduism is a Hindu nationalist problem.
Where exactly did this happen? You are just saying things without any proof, I require proof to take this seriously, otherwise it seems you are just making stuff up.

They didn't grow up in a buddhist environment. This is also why so many western atheists don't seem to care about jews and muslims.

Most american atheism is just anti-protestantism.

>>3189879
>What? No, i am sure you can feel and understand to an extent of how you digestion works, or else you will be shitting your pants which can be controlled by your own actions.
The digestive system is controlled by the brain stem. You aren't manually flexing your small intestine or squirting out stomach acid. None of this requires conscious thought.

>Both are complicit on repetition to be relevant, meticulous and mundane. Both have traditional way and new way both originate from the same thought. Action.
This bit is incomprehensible to me.

>>3189841
So, I know little about Judaism so take what I say with a pinch of salt. But the treatment of tradition as something that's sacred in an of itself is one commonality. The poring over scriptures and coming up with your interpretations by the common person is another (this job is largely left to religious authorities in Islam and Christianity imo). There are other things I've noticed too that aren't coming to mind at the moment. What led me down this train of thought was just the fact that these are the only two religions that seem to have a sizable minority of practicing atheists.

>>3189908
It's interesting that you say this, cause I had a hindu nationalist roomate once that was a very interested in Judaism, and had a bunch of books on kabbalah. He was cool, we used to have lots of interesting conversations since I also happen to be interested in Hinduism.

>>3189635
>>3189624
>>3189574
Why is this board so infested with hindutvas?

>>3188808

It stretches credulity to its breaking point, to suppose (in the historically important Christian iteration) an omnipotent god who nevertheless creates imperfect beings and finds them wanting, treating them quite badly in the first place, but magically saving them in the sequel through a convoluted and nonsensical mystery when he for whatever reason doesn't simply roll time backwards and create a perfect creation. god does not get bored, and so god does not need a drama of imperfection. I know the mind of god.

The only genuinely moral response to the learning of the reality of any of the versions of the Abramaic god, is first of all to reject such a contemptible creature, /even and especially in the case that such actually exists/, and were it possible, to murder it with extreme prejudice and at the earliest convenience. It is rightly dismaying to me, as it ought always to be to all people at all times, to instead observe that the bulk of humanity accept the story of what cannot be known, what cannot be understood, and what above all cannot be justified from the only vantage point which has any value, which is that of man. Here is true wisdom.

Nor can the thought experiment be successfully made, which justifies damnation of human beings. It is only a projection of the human capacity for vindictiveness.

And that's the point. Common responses at this juncture include "enjoy hell lmao", "I'll pray for you" etc, when it's just been demonstrated that the Christian does not deserve to have good feelings about his own religion, or to be smug about same. You worship an arbitrary tyrant who is simultaneously a weak dead kike on a stick - in other words, the worst of both worlds.

Happily, once one re-reads, it becomes clear what is really going on, and what has always been the case: the human need for storytelling in order to make sense of the world has mutated and projected into grand narratives of god, in which world people have place.

>>3189935
The only sane response to the Abrahamic God is to take these stories figuratively/symbolically. 9/10 doctors agree that taking it literally leads to autism, and the last doctor is a kjv-only baptist so we can pretty much discount his opinion.

>>3189926
I'm the guy you quote in the middle and I don't even know what an hinduva is.

>>3189926
>Why is this board so infested with hindutvas?
lol, probably because of people like you who can't even use the word hindutva correctly (hindutva is a belief not a person or a collective, that would be hindutvavadi), who go around teaching Hinduism to Hindus. I guess if Indians had been wiped out or converted like the other people the west came in contact with you'd safely be able to push the west's understanding
of indic faiths as the final word. Unfortunately that didn't happen and you're going to get some resistance yet.

>>3189924
I think there's a natural affinity because of being non-proselytizing religions that managed to survive the onslaught of Christianity AND Islam.

>>3189957
Why you so mad, Prajeet?

>>3189885
>http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Jains-Sikhs-Buddhists-not-different-from-Hindus-RSS/articleshow/39495560.cms

>Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists cannot be considered minority communities because they are part of the Hindu society
>All attempts to categorise these three religious groups as minority should be seen as a conspiracy

It doesn't take a rocket scientists to do a quick google search. But really the idea that these religions are Hindu is ingrained in many Hindu nationalists. Whether it be benign attempts to promote a Hindu identity or some other aspect at play, it is what it is. The fact that their laws make it clear that these are not different religions but a Hindu religion.

>>3186573
Best post.
Nice insight, anon

Besides some dharmic concepts like Karma and Rebirth, Theravada Buddhism atleast doesn't really have any of the metaphysical concepts that define what most people would call a proper religion and even then they are basicly irrelevant outside of moral conduct.
And which it does have are just a remnant of it's place and time of origin in ancient india.
Mahayana on the other hand...

>>3190056
>http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Jains-Sikhs-Buddhists-not-different-from-Hindus-RSS/articleshow/39495560.cms


Hinduism is not a monolith, it is vastly different, and there is radicalization, of course there is, 300,000 hindu pundits were supposedly forced to leave Kashmir esentially ethnically cleansing the place, that is plenty reason to become radicalized. Hindus dont have the kind of gross violence spurred by religious identity that muslims have but it is getting there causing a number of ignorant views like what is stated in that article to take place due to no action by the muslim community and no outcry internationally.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-35923237

Hindu just means you are part of the whole, its isnt like western religions which impose certain strictures, they are free to do as they like. Plus the religion is Sanatana Dharma, it comes under the purview of hinduism because of thenorigin in dharmic tradition.

because le deep spiritual asian man in lotus pose

notice how a white man meidiating with legs crossed looks silly

but when a chink does it, it's spiritual and deep and eatpraylovelivelaughlove, deep mysticism, untold truths, chink wisdom

just another case of racism against white people

>>3188915
yeah but that's not what hindus actually believe

too often we have these intellectuals try to interpret religion in xya ways, when the actual religion, and how it's practiced by the vast majority of it's adherents is entirely different

most of these hindu/buddha religions are just these massive conglomerations of folk beliefs (tokenism, traditional medicine), ancestor respect worship/respect, monk respect/paying alms, praying and giving shit so you get things in return for your own lives

hell you could probaby o an atheistic reading of the abrahamic god, but that's not how the religion is and it's the same for the eastern religions

>>3188919
>t we are all interconnected in some way through our atomic structures.

t. knows nothing about buddhism nor dependent origination

>>3188959
this is just semantic bullshit

the goal of buddhism is to achieve atheistic death

it's a crybaby religion for faggot indian peasent losers

waa waa life is hard but my faggot folk samsaric beliefs prevent me from just docking myself so I gotta autism my entire life away staring at walls and shit and also pay the fucking monks

>>3190160
>besides these crazy religious metaphysical concepts, buddhism doesn't really have any crazy religious metaphysical concepts

bodhisattvas are deities desu

>>3188919
Stop hasing out shitty popscience garbage. The feel good statements do nothing.

>>3185575
Why does Christianity get a 'free pass' from white nationalist /pol/tards?

Christianity itself is full of inclusion and diversity

>>3189935
>being this buttmad at daddy
Lol