I think I am a bit of both. I don't believe in the typical sky father figure or the Bible. But I'm not free of a spiritual bent. I like the right living principles of Buddhism. They fit me.

“If the Greeks taught us how to reason and Christianity what to believe, it is Zen that teaches us to go beyond logic and not to tarry even when we come up against ‘the things which are not seen’. For the Zen point of view is to find an absolute point where no dualism in whatever form resides. Logic starts from the division of subject and object, and belief distinguishes between what is seen and what is not seen. The Western mode of thinking can never do away with this eternal dilemma, this or that, reason or faith, man and God, etc. With Zen all these are swept aside as something veiling our insight into the nature of life and reality. Zen leads us into a realm of Emptiness or Void where no conceptualism prevails.”

Author: D.T. Suzuki

and helpful and representations of the conflicts unenlightened people harbor and tempt us away from
the world as perceived by a clear mind.
I think atheism is compatible with Buddhism to the extent that first you have to take the step to meditate and determine for yourself if that particular school is suitable for you and seek out another school or path if you are not progressing. This is something you can do without recourse to an organization; it's something you can do on your own: Many have.
Wisdom is Compassion seems about right to me.
Soto Zen is perhaps the easiest school for a solitary Buddhist - one without a teacher - and there are good books on the subject.
Best of luck to you.

So, for many Buddhists, Buddhism is something that requires faith. It is something to believe.

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)

... there are a bunch of atheists and skeptics who practice this in a very secular and pragmatic way, based on reason and science. Check things out here:

SecularBuddhism.org

No cost, no ads, just community building. Check out the podcast a couple of episodes ago, too, with three friends from Center for Inquiry:

http://secularbuddhism.org/2012/07/29/episode-128-gert-de-boer-brennen-mckenzie-doug-smith-scientific-skepticism-and-buddhism/

Ted

The reason there are western Buddhists is mostly due to that whole crisis, from what I understand.

But yes, that religion is in tune with atheistic views. Though, probably more so with pantheists. And hey, if you don't feel like going full fledge Buddhist, that doesn't mean you can't try out meditation.

In the 1950s, Kerouac was surprised to find so many Buddhists in California the first time he visited there.
I think there's been significant interest and participation in Buddhism in the West for over 100 years.

like Pema Chodron and Joko Beck.

Joko Beck's books and CD offer a stripped-down jargon-free version of Zen Buddhism.

Pema Chodron has a wide range of books and recordings, some of which are very accessible to the non-Buddhist and others of which look into Buddhist texts and teachings in more depth.

Or science, for that matter.

When the Dalai Lama gave a speech in San Francisco, he stated (to the effect of), if there is something in Buddhism that doesn't seem to work for you, you can just say F it (He actually said the F word).

So, as an atheist and a Buddhist, you do not have to reconcile reincarnation.

Skeptic Carl Sagan asked the Dalai Lama what would he do if a fundamental tenet of his religion (reincarnation) were definitively disproved by science. The Dalai Lama answered; "if science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation."

If there is no rebirth, there is but one chance at Enlightenment. And if not achieved, what? Oblivion?

The most attractive part of Buddhusm to me is detachment. I find many similarities to western Stoicism. But, as I understand it, detachment is not the goal but the means to Nirvana.

Let's let Buddha answer that question. According to the Buddha himself in the Kalama sutra : 'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him."

That is the point of Buddhism, the benefits are to be reaped in this life, not the hereafter.

You don't go to Nirvana after death. Nirvana is the supreme peace found in this life after you have walked the path. Buddha attained Nirvana under the Bodhi tree and taught for 40 years. The Buddha never spoke of what happens after an enlightened being dies. There is a sutra where a monk tells Buddha he will leave the sangha if he does not tell him what happens after an enlightened being dies. Buddha refused to answer that question, saying it was unrelated to the goal of his teachings which were the end of suffering. I'll try and find the sutra if you are interested in reading it.

If you can point me to a reference I'd appreciate.

and I ascribe to an atheistic reincarnation. I don't see why religion should have a monopoly on an afterlife. If our atoms can be accidentally arranged to give us a living form in a universe without a god once, given the fact that matter cannot be created nor destroyed - just change form - it makes sense the initial atoms that composed us can be subject to the same accidental incorporation into another life form. They say the water we drink today could have been used by Julius Ceasar. I think the same logic can be applied to the atoms that compose us. Nature reuses everything.

AFAIK, reincarnation and karma are related.

a natural reincarnation would not be subject to the dictates of karma. The evil would have just as much chance as a good person to be reincarnated as a butterfly but isn't Buddhism ultimately about forgiving everything anyway?

I can't answer what Buddhism is all about (nor do I think would Buddha), but forgiveness, tolerance, detachment and compassion have to be right up there.

Is it a philosophy, a religion, a state of being? Got me.

But what has gotten my attention is injecting a notion of atheism into it. While there is surely no personal god being in it, or a defined deity, and it therefore meets the minimal technical definition of atheism, still, the moving force in it, the moving towards Nirvana governed, apparently, by karma through reincarnation, has no scientific or material basis that I can see. If anything, it would be the result of some overwhelming transcendence, which in turn nudges against the concept of some kind of non-material, if not "spiritual", reality.

Even conceding that atheism is mute on science and that it simply holds no belief in a divinity, I don't see how the two can be reconciled.

it's definitely not scientistic or materialistic - i.e. it admits the possibility of unknowable aspects of reality.

A-theist just means without gods. Even "atheism" as a religious position is silent on the issue of, "Is what we can perceive all there is?" Even if most atheists aren't...

What if karma and/or reincarnation followed some multidimesional but still natural reality? Would that reduce your anxiety?

There's a difference between a life philosophy (such as compassion and non-attachment) and a cosmology (karma and reincarnation). IMO your thinking may go smoother if you tease those apart and address each on its own level. AFAIK there is no rule that says that Buddhism in general requires a cosmological component, unless you adhere to a particular school.

There are non-dualist relatives of Buddhism such as Taoism and Advaita that are even more open-ended.

If its beliefs and practices cannot be shown to have a materal basis, then, it seems to me, it must possess an extranatural, or supernatural aspect. That approaches some concept of divinity or transcendence, from which the balance of karma stems. I do not thnk atheism is the nonbelief only of personal gods, but of divinity itself. That's why I don't thnk the two are compatible. I'm doubtful the profundity of Buddhism rests on something like "The Force".

That's my take on it anyway. Thanks for your thoughtful response.

"Cause and effect are one thing. And what is that one thing? You. That’s why what you do and what happens to you are the same thing."
http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/karma.htm

In terms of Western philosophy, it's is mistake to confuse Buddhism with any of the metaphysical schools (materialism, idealism, realism etc.), phenomenalism is what comes closer to Buddhist approach.

As for atheism etc., Buddhist logic of Middle Path avoids all following positions as extreme:

- theism
- atheism
- both theism and atheism
- neither theism nor atheism

are of any use...that's a fundamental teaching in Buddhism, at least as I have been taught and practiced.

Buddhism is compatible with atheism in my experience because atheism, the question of gods or other non-verified experiences and beliefs, has nothing to do with how you live your life.

And as for the striving for nirvana, it is finding it right here and now, not some mystical place or state of being.

It is problematic to talk about your take or your intellectual analysis of Buddhism, for anyone, because it is about real experience, real action (Karma) and how you live your life.

The thing not compatible with atheism is belief in gods. An atheist can still believe in ESP, werewolves, trickle-down economics, healing with crystals, etc.

My seven-year-old is an atheist, but he believes in Santa. When I asked him why he believed in Santa, he said, "I know he is real because he gives me presents every year." To which I said, "Good point." I lie to children.

If reincarnation does not require a god or a supernatural or divine force, then how does it work? I can't see a natural cause.

because I also cannot see a natural cause.

Perhaps someone here can explain it to us.

natural energy that created your life, my life, every life on earth and elsewhere. Only "no-thing", an absolute vacuum, is truly dead. Even the most seemingly inanimate object is full of energy, subatomic life zooming with energy, mocking the macroscopic levels it creates and is created from. The brick in the wall, seemingly inanimate, seemingly lifeless, still possesses tremendous energy of all it's atoms, "holding" the air away, the bricks above it, and takes more energy than it possesses to be overcome.
Yes you will reincarnate somewhere, but think about this: what really are the chances you will reincarnate on earth immediately after this life?
The sun's rays, just as every star, radiate 360 degrees, three dimensionally. Radiating away from our energy source, not stopping until they encounter, become a part of, or bounce away from an object. That object may be a small particle near the sun. It may be another space body an unfathomable distance from us.
Once dead, there are no words, no thoughts. You're still, however, just kind of "there". It can be disorienting after years living in the animal you reside and it will feel, immediately, "cold". You will seek warmth, other energy, move through other living and (seemingly to us, non-living) beings, experience their thoughts, sights, sounds, fears, energy for a short time. Eventually, you will "expand". This is very, very difficult to put into words, there just aren't adequate sets of them to describe the experience. Once you do, you will: "go into the light". Time becomes meaningless as you travel with it, then somehow, somewhere, you will rejoin the matrix of another life.
The natural cause you seek is all around you. It will not "speak" like the supernatural we define. God, the devil, santa klaus and the easter bunny will melt away.

"I've been dead once, it's very liberating" -- Jack Nicholson as the Joker in "Batman".

That is fair, and I will try to keep that in mind.

How to explain extracorporeal perceptions? Example from today, several nights of sleeping on this:
Sometime after 3 p.m. today, thoughts of my mother emerged in short discussion about her in general, with a colleague. I was at work. At an approximation of the same time, my cell phone, plugged into a socket in my apartment 4 miles away from work received voicemail message from her, no specific question from her, just "hello haven't heard from you in a while, call me." I got that message about 6 p.m. when coming home from work. Simply coincidental? These things only can bring up wondering, more questions than answers. I seem to have uncanny numbers of coincidences like these.
Absence of corporeal thought processes are in nature, extremely disorienting. Allow me to explain what happened to me nearly 25 years ago that has caused me to seek answers to this ever since:
To the best of my ability to put this into sets of words:
I walked into the bathroom after dinner in my apartment in San Francisco. After that, it gets blurry, but: Then I felt tired, and went to bed, or so it seemed. But the door to my bedroom was closed. There was something about I couldn't turn the knob. Then I couldn't seem to get warm, I couldn't seem to pull the blankets. I had no arms and legs to do so. It was evening. Time seemed to stand still. I seemed... to be... the bed.
My roommate, after I returned from the hospital, said I was having seizures on the bathroom floor and he dialed 911. I remember none of this.
Somehow.... (more questions than answers), sort of, instinctively I moved towards where my body was transported... but this is only a "recollective" assumption. I seemed to... expand beyond the bed, beyond the bedroom, and what seemed like suddenly I was laying on wooden floor, somewhere and I was panting. I was covered in fur and had paws. I looked up to a woman sitting in a chair, reading a book. She was like an image from an old black and white television set. Just as suddenly, I was reading the book, and looked over at the dog laying on the floor. But somehow this was all "wrong"... (more questions than answers!) Something, "just felt wrong, but I did feel the chair below me, the warm air brown floor, red and yellow "heat" to my left, the brownish red dog facing me, looking at me, lying on the floor. I was, for a few short seconds, a largish woman sitting, putting the book in my lap and looking at the dog, who was looking back at me.
Then I (best word I can put to this) "expanded" again.
No time seemed to pass except when I was the dog, then the woman. Not more than a few seconds.
I awoke in my own body again. I was tied to a gurney at San Francisco General Emergency room surrounded by staffers there. Soft padding all around, and people. Someone was disconnecting electrodes from my head and calling the doctor. I asked where I was, disoriented. I didn't even know for a few minutes, who I was. I looked down. I was catheterized and monitor leads were all over my chest. My chest hurt, badly. The other staffers there walked away. "Beep, Beep, Beep..." I was afraid of it. I called over someone, and asked what time it was. She said it was about 6 a.m. -- but somehow, this didn't seem unusual or difficult to understand. Only later I realized I had taken some kind of time jump. She gave me, apparently a sedative through my I.V. line. I awoke again later, but I don't know what time. My significant other (Stephen) was there asking me what the hell happened. I couldn't explain.
After discharge, I went to Stephen's place. I moved in with him after returning to my apartment. My roomate at the time looked at me wide-eyed and said I'd scared him to death. I answered him: "No, I died" I don't know how, but I at that point, I knew that.
He asked me to move out.
So, I moved in with Stephen. But the same day, I took my meds, and got a case of wry neck. I couldn't understand that something was wrong till Stephen came home from work and talked me into going back to the hospital. While there, after some kind of shot that alleviated my neck spasm, I inquired the doctor to please explain what happened to me a few days earlier. He came back with a puzzled look on his face. He said I had a cardiac arrest during some kind of seizure. But something was wrong. My labs were totally normal. There was some sugar detected in my urine which he said raised concern for diabetes, so he drew blood, took urine again. Now, totally normal. All tests, except sugar in urine and some cardiac enzyme were now normal. They also had done a tox screen on previous visit. No drug detected.
I wrote it all off... I must have just had hallucinations.
UNTIL
A few months later: I went to Safeway after work. I found myself behind a woman in line who seemed very, very familiar in a way I could not explain. Then she turned and glanced at me. I suddenly felt totally flushed, sick. It was the very woman I'd seen through the eyes of her dog, then became. I uttered: "Oh my god, it was real."
I left the shopping cart right there. I walked home, feeling like I was in a dream. No one seemed real, at all. Even Stephen greeted me in the hallway of the apartment and looked at me: "You look like you've just seen a ghost".
"I did". and I went to bed.
That was, to the best of my recollection, 1987. Stephen died a few months later from complications of AIDS. I am healthy, except for chronic injuries I sustained from being mugged in December 2009. But that is a totally different story.
The Loma Prieta earthquake shook our apartment immensely nearly two years later. I was with a new and different lover, Eldon. He died in 2001.
I have relived this experience thousands of times, and it always just brings up more questions than answers. I'm still sorting it out.

Bathroom. After dinner.
Doorknob.
Keyhole.
Bed.
Blankets... "cold".
bigger. and bigger.
bricks. glass.
Dog.
Woman. book. Energy... tremendous energy. I seemed to "bounce around". Bright yellow.
Darkness. Bricks again. Light.
Energy. Big.. NO, HUGE. Bigger than the earth. Much bigger. Tremendous energy. Incredible speed. "Bounce" like being hit with a tennis racket.
My eyes.
Arms and legs tied.
Midsternal chest pain.
Nurse. Morning. IV.
Sleep.
Stephen.

imagine you are an atom. Matter gets reused. You live. You die for awhile. And then your atom gets reintegrated with other atoms in a new life form through natural processes. It will probably take gazillions of years, far longer than the life of the earth, so long there's no reason to worry or obssess over it. But eventually the universe will reanimate you on some other planet. You'll never know it's "you" but it will be and that's "reincarnation."

That's the short, non scientific answer. Others may be able to offer ideas that might explain the biological processes that could get you there.

in fact to my understanding the very idea of some sort of god or gods who judge and intervene in this world is contrary to at least one fundamental tenant of Buddhism, at least the Zen schools.

Some of the things that have kept me practicing with the sangha I sit with are things like the senior teachers saying things like "Don't believe me." "There's nothing magical about this."

Someone else here said Buddhism isn't something your believe it is something you do. That's pretty good, very much what one of the Zen masters from Japan, Dogen (widely considered the father of Japanese Soto Zen) taught.

That said there is faith involved and my own concept of what it means to be spiritual has evolved a good deal since practicing, still no where near in the direction of developing a belief in gods or supernatural things.

The Tibetan tradition and some other older schools around Asia have mixed with older religious traditions and hold many traditions that wouldn't be compatible to what most in the west would consider an atheist view, but there are other schools and traditions.

You might also check out "Buddhism without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor

I wouldn't take everything he says without examination but I found it helpful.

just for a start:
https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/

quote:
https://sites.google.com/site/rahulawhatthebuddha/the-buddhist-attitude-of-mind

".... Man’s position, according to Buddhism, is supreme. Man is his own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny.

‘One is one’s own refuge, who else could be the refuge?’[1] said the Buddha. He admonished his disciples to ‘be a refuge to themselves’, and never to seek refuge in or help from anybody else.[2] He taught, encouraged and stimulated each person to develop himself and to work out his own emancipation, for man has the power to liberate himself from all bondage through his own personal effort and intelligence. The Buddha says: ‘You should do your work, for the Tathāgatas[3] only teach the way.’[4] If the Buddha is to be called a ‘saviour’ at all, it is only in the sense that he discovered and showed the Path to Liberation, Nirvāṇa. But we must tread the Path ourselves.

It is on this principle of individual responsibility that the Buddha allows freedom to his disciples. In the Mahāparinibbāna-sutta the Buddha says that he never thought of controlling the Sangha (Order of Monks),[5] nor he did want the Sangha to depend on him. He said that there was no esoteric doctrine in his teaching, nothing hidden in the ‘closed-fist of the teacher’ (ācariya-muṭṭhi), or to put it in other words, there never was anything ‘up his sleeve’.[6]

The freedom of thought allowed by the Buddha is unheard of elsewhere in the history of religions. This freedom is necessary because, according to the Buddha, man’s emancipation depends on his own realization of Truth, and not on the benevolent grace of a god or any external power as a reward for his obedient good behaviour.

The Buddha once visited a small town called Kesaputta in the kingdom of Kosala. The inhabitants of his town were known by the common name Kālāma. When they heard that the Buddha was in their town, the Kālāmas paid him a visit, and told him:

‘Sir, there are some recluses and brāhmaṇas who visit Kesaputta. They explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. Then come other recluses and brāhmaṇas, and they, too, in their turn, explain and illumine only their own doctrines, and despise, condemn and spurn others’ doctrines. But, for us, Sir, we have always doubt and perplexity as to who among these venerable recluses and brāhmaṇas spoke the truth, and who spoke falsehood.’

Then the Buddha gave them this advice unique in the history of religions:

‘Yes, Kālāmas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity, for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kālāmas, do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by seeming possibilities, nor by the idea: ‘this is our teacher’. But, O Kālāmas, when you know for yourselves that certain things are unwholesome (akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up … And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept them and follow them.’[7]

The Buddha went even further. He told the bhikkhus that a disciple should examine even the Tathāgata (Buddha) himself, so that he (the disciple) might be fully convinced of the true value of the teacher whom he followed. ...."

This is not a dualistic question, to "believe in God" or to be an "atheist" but rather whether or not you believe that the world is afflicted with suffering because of the will of humans and that we can control this to put an end to suffering/its ill effects.

Taoism probably, but not most other religions. All other religions have some concept of an eternal soul, Buddhism strongly denies this claim viewing the concept of an eternal soul as a dangerous illusion.

Most other faiths hold that the world was created and is ruled by a God or Gods. Buddhists deny this. In the 60s monks from Theravada and Mahayana got together and issued the "Basic Points Unifying the Theravada and Mahayana" the 3rd was "We do not believe that this world is created and ruled by a God."

Is it compatible with atheism, yes I think so. Can other members of other faiths practice and benefit from Buddhism? Sure, but that does not make them Buddhist.

of physics and physiology, etc.
Buddhism is not merely a system of yoga-like exercises either.
When you sit, there is a purpose and tradition(s). The meditation of no-mind is cmnpatible with atheism as long as
the latter is of the type that is indiferent to a personal diety.

All manifest forms are transitory and empty.

Transitory, yes. Empty, no. Devoid of form and timeless, sometimes.

Of course not every Buddhist accepts the Heart Sutra and is is open to interpretation.

The core of Siddhartha Gautama's teachings have nothing to do with belief in gods or "reincarnation" as the term is normally used. He, like nearly all Indians at the time, believed in those things, though, and they got needlessly mixed into the dogmas of most Buddhist sects.

He once had a bunch of townspeople being bamboozled by some Brahmins come up to him and asked for his advice. he told them to not be mislead by intellectual authority or be convinced by ideas that merely seemed reasonable but had no evidence to back them up. He also told them that questions about the Hereafter were useless to Enlightenment. He believed in Reincarnation but said that if there were no reincarnation it would not affect his teachings, because they are for happiness in this life.

Interesting.

that I have been exposed to, I do not call myself a Buddhist. I use it more as one of many cool philosophies, rather than a religion.

I don't how well the word "philosophy" translates into Japanese, but in English, Buddhism definitely has strong philosophical aspects. The sutras are philosophical documents. The Four Nobel Truths is is also a philosophical document, when written down.

It is not really commentary on Buddhism, but rather a matter of modern, English vocabulary.

And of course you're right always learning available.

I have seen much debate about the meaning and applicability of the word to Buddhism.

Not a debate I'm qualified to settle btw.

Peace.

Only with inexplicable faith I will awaken when the sun comes back around and live another day or so.

...very interesting and informative...i am still very much on the edge of this whole 'thing' and value the input...

There is no mountain. Everything you need is here.

Atheist's don't believe in god/gods. the Buddha created the "Wheel of Life" as a teaching tool for the literate and the illiterate alike.

http://www.buddhanet.net/wheel2.htm

pretty much says it all. you will notice there is a Realm of the gods on the Wheel of Life. bye-bye Atheists. Buddhists say the gods also exist in Samsara [world of perpetual rebirth suffering old age and death.] so if God, Jahova, Allah included cant get themselves out of Samsara they cant get you out either. bye-bye religion. Buddhism is based on a single logical statement, you try it, if it works and only if it works you can become a Buddhist. there is no Faith in Buddhism, bye-bye religion. you are on your own, no one else no god either can save you, bye-bye TV preacher. you live right [the Middle Way-the Noble 8 Fold Path], while you develop your mind with practice and meditation. if you aren't enlightened this life don't worry you have as many as it will take.

i am presently living on the Buckle of the Bible Belt, no Buddhists around. no Sanga, so i have begun a solo Pure Land [Kuan Yin] practice. there are a lot of different types of Buddhism. i had a catastrophic accident and went through 16 hours of surgery over 2 months and i was 60 yrs old, not to mention totally bleeding out. it did some pretty bad things to my brain. i don't seem to be able to meditate, PTSD really screws up your electrical system. so i decided to do a devotional practice with mostly mantras as a meditation.
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/kuanyin/

https://www.google.com/search?q=kuan+yin&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=IeoeUdChJofo8QTZtIHQCA&sqi=2&ved=0CEIQsAQ&biw=1108&bih=561

Guanyin is actually Avalokitesvara [of the Heart Sutra ]who was also Chenrezig..the Dalia Lama is his 14th reincarnation. who was also the Buddha Amataba.. who was Sidartha's side kick along his path to enlightenment. Guanyin is also Green Tara, born of a tear from the eye of the Lord of Compassion [Chenrezig] as he observed the needless suffering of all sentient beings ...now after all that can anyone not say we are all one.?