Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the touched-by-his-noodly-appendage dept.

Washington's Blog reports

The Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life is reporting, in their poll of 35,000 Americans, that during the seven years from 2007 to 2014, the numbers of religiously "Unaffiliated" were soaring, the numbers of Christians were plunging, and the numbers of adherents to non-Christian faiths were rising substantially but not nearly as much as were the numbers of "Unaffiliated".

This report, issued on May 12th, is headlined, "America's Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow".

It shows that: the percentage of Americans who are unaffiliated rose from 16.1% in 2007 up to 22.8% today.

[...][The USA] is becoming a less [religious], and a more religiously diverse, country.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:33AM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:33AM (#182780) Homepage

    The next time you hear somebody in the press whine about "strident" or "militant" atheists, or how our lives are devoid of morality or meaning or whatever...remember: there're far more godless folk in the States than Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and all other non-Christians combined. And there're more of us than there are Blacks, and about as many as there are Hispanics.

    Can you imagine the uproar if the same sorts of epithets and insults got automatically uttered with respect to each of those other groups?

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:40AM

    by edIII (791) on Thursday May 14 2015, @04:40AM (#182803)

    there're far more godless folk in the States than Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and all other non-Christians combined

    Uhhh, as a Buddhist (well mostly just the label that fits best), I'm pretty sure that I've been under the distinct impression the whole time..... that we have no gods and are godless. Buddha was not a god, nor do I think most Buddhists believe that he was either, so the rest is just supernatural. I come to the defense of Buddhism by objecting to the notion that I must believe in a god, or gods, or grouped with those that do. I do believe in God (The Big G), but that's really just an existential abstraction WRT to infinity, not a belief in a white bearded man that has an ego like mine. So I wouldn't even classify it as a direct belief in a god strangely enough, just an acknowledgment of a totality that can be discussed, disputed, etc.

    Buddhism is far closer to Atheism in some cases than most people realize, it's just that so many of the elements of Buddhism strongly relate to spirituality which seemingly drags it back to a belief in gods and the supernatural. Well, spirituality and empirical science have a bit of a tiff going on lately, but I don't see the journey inside and the pondering of a soul and reincarnation to be mutually exclusive with Atheism.

    I really just get the distinct impression that most people were just going through the motions before, but the Internet and the always-on generation has pretty much cleared away the pretense. It's hard to act with moral superiority when you're too busy posting titty/dick pics to Reddit. People are no longer pressured to identify with a religion believing in God, or one acceptable to those that do. We're not afraid today to say that we believe in flying fucking Spaghetti monsters, or nothing, or that magical ponies rule our world from Venus. In other words, more people are waking up and caring a heck of a lot less about the whole thing. You don't see that more clearly then when you ask somebody if they identify with religions and god, and there is no social pressure to do so anymore.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:02AM

      by Farkus888 (5159) on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:02AM (#182807)

      Atheist in the capital A sense in America is strongly tied to skepticism. This means reincarnation is out because there is no science documenting it. There are a lot of people who don't believe in God as a being with an ego, but that is a different thing than Atheism. Technically it means just not believing in a god, in practice it has a set of beliefs built around there being no supernatural anything.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:00AM (#182814)

        By definition there is no supernatural anything in any religion or secular view. Unless of course you define supernatural to be a subset of the whole in which one group of people believe to be and another does not, then all that "supernatural" becomes is the difference. The views of atheists are obvious but religious views may not be. For instance a person could say that miracles are supernatural, but for a Catholic they are created just as anything else is created: by God's will alone. Thus miracles are perfectly natural to a Catholic. Ghosts or spirits might get the supernatural moniker. They don't exist at all in a secular view and Celts would deem them part of nature, just not a common or welcome part.

        Thus defining atheism as a set of beliefs built around there being no supernatural anything would be to say that everyone everywhere is an atheist, some of which just so happen to believe in a god. Now that does not seem right does it?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:41AM

          by Farkus888 (5159) on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:41AM (#182823)

          If miracles were natural they wouldn't be miracles. Even the religious understand that the laws of nature apply, except when God causes a miracle to defy them. But that is flippant. I am an atheist and I wrote what I did from that perspective. Supernatural to me meaning not observable, repeatable, and measurable by scientific methods. If there is a better word for that I don't know it. Before you mention those ghost hunter groups, I'll expect you to explain why they've never bothered to pick up their free million dollars from Rands.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:05AM (#182817)

      Buddha was not a god, nor do I think most Buddhists believe that he was either

      As do most people who have any idea of Eastern religious practices. However, in the context of the west, those are extremely rare, so it's no surprise that it's often omitted or marginalized in the discussion. Don't take it the wrong way, it's just a matter of omission of details in the interest of brevity.

      Buddhism is far closer to Atheism in some cases than most people realize

      Only in the very strictest sense. Informally, atheism is pretty much a synonym of amysticism these days. Most atheists reject all supernatural beliefs, regardless of weather they are religious or not. You won't find many atheists who believe in Ghosts, UFOs, voodoo and similar mumbo-jumbo.

      Well, spirituality and empirical science have a bit of a tiff going on lately

      That's because science is inherently rationalist, where belief in the supernatural is inherently not.

      In other words, more people are waking up and caring a heck of a lot less about the whole thing.

      I'm skeptical about that. We replaced God with an ideology once, we can do it again. There will always be suckers who want an easy answer, and many western education systems seem to be hand-crafted to produce those.

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:43AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:43AM (#182829) Journal

        Most atheists reject all supernatural beliefs, regardless of weather

        Not true! Some atheists only believe there is no god when the weather is shitty. Others only when the weather is good. And some, indeed, are atheists regardless of weather.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @09:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @09:38PM (#183134)

        That's because science is inherently rationalist, where belief in the supernatural is inherently not.

        Uh, I think the word you are looking for is naturalistic [wikipedia.org]. Rationalism holds that reason is "the chief source and test of knowledge." [wikipedia.org] It holds that "the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive." In other words, experimental and observational science are out. Strictly speaking, modern science is based on methodological naturalism; I don't think this would be considered controversial to most practicing scientists today, whether they believe in God or not. On the other hand, my experience suggests that most of today's practicing scientists are also ontological or metaphysical naturalists. Maybe this is what you were trying to say, albeit in your own rather clumsy way.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 15 2015, @11:36PM

        by edIII (791) on Friday May 15 2015, @11:36PM (#183566)

        You won't find many atheists who believe in Ghosts, UFOs, voodoo and similar mumbo-jumbo.

        I didn't say I did either, but your response is part of the problem.

        Ghosts are part of the supernatural, and shouldn't be dismissed so easily. What I mean is, that as much as I don't have proof they exist, you don't have proof they don't. My objection is your apparent implied judgement that they can't exist. See emphasis in the quote.

        UFO's are not even beginning to be placed inside the realm of supernatural. Whether they exist or not, it's entirely 100% science and tangible evidence that can be empirically inspected. You can't have science searching for the answer of extraterrestrial and sentient life, and then make the claim that their logically required vehicles would be mumbo-jumbo akin to practitioners of Voodoo. Just how do you think they would get here? Instantaneous transport? How would that not be equally regarded as mumbo-jumbo? Remember, we've never had proof of a ghost, but we damn well have proof of cars, vehicles, planes, and space shuttles.

        You want a real world example, then look at Africa in our history and how natives would have reacted to advanced transports. Can you even imagine how some tribes in South America, who have members that have never seen some technology past the dark ages, react to the site of a hover-drone with lights at night? Yeah, UFOs are not so easily dismissed. Personally, I just don't care. If aliens landed tomorrow on the White House lawn, I would be the guy at work who shrugs his shoulders and gets back on task. Why? Are the aliens going to come visit me, take me to lunch, and then proceed to do my job, pay my bills, cook my food? Most likely not, and I'm not given to bouts of fear and panic just because they're here. Shit happens, deal with it.

        They could be visiting us for all you know right now, but it just doesn't matter. Still not supernatural though, and explicitly natural.

        That's because science is inherently rationalist, where belief in the supernatural is inherently not.

        This is a huge problem for me, because your statement completely precludes the journey inside. You may as well just say fuck it, and that the journey into yourself is pointless and meaningless. We all die, it's all oblivion in our futures, etc.

        The journey that most Buddhists, and many other people, attempt to go on inside is not mutually exclusive with rational beliefs. You're simply too limited in your thinking, and you will never make sense of what happens inside you. Not everything inside is so easily worked with by empirical science. As I'm sure by your tone, you don't consider psychologists to be working with rational thought?

        Please remember, it's one thing to go inside and ponder these things, and it's something entirely different to get done with your 'session' and then make wild claims about how your experiences represent, or dominate, the actual reality around us that we share. The problem isn't the journey, or the apparent lack of "science", it's the human behaviors regarding it. Those can be changed.

        There will always be suckers who want an easy answer, and many western education systems seem to be hand-crafted to produce those.

        This statement has so truly amused me, I must thank you personally and send you all the love I have to give.

        There are no easy answers, no shortcuts, nothing given to you on a silver platter when you dedicate yourself to the journey inside. It's all your work, all your ideas, all your concepts, it's all you baby.

        But I will be quite tickled that somebody thinks Buddhism is the intellectually easy way out of dealing with life, death, and the pursuit of cookies.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 15 2015, @11:52PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 15 2015, @11:52PM (#183577)

          What I mean is, that as much as I don't have proof they exist, you don't have proof they don't.

          Until sufficient evidence is presented, I will lack a belief in those things. I cannot say that they don't exist with absolute certainty, but I don't need to. I also find it rather unlikely that supernatural nonsense exists. That is the rational position.

          UFOs are just unidentified flying objects, of which there have been plenty. I don't see evidence of extraterrestrial beings, though.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:19AM (#182825)

      Uhhh, as a Buddhist (well mostly just the label that fits best), I'm pretty sure that I've been under the distinct impression the whole time..... that we have no gods and are godless. Buddha was not a god, nor do I think most Buddhists believe that he was either, so the rest is just supernatural.

      Typical buddhist propoganda. Buddha IS your god.

      Got something that looks like a church? yup.
      Got something that looks like a priest caste? yup.
      Got something that looks like a bunch of holy texts? yup.
      Got something that looks like a set of rules to live by? yup.
      Got something that looks like a promise of an afterlife? yup.
      Got something that looks like a bunch of people praying in front of an idol? yup.

      But for some reason all we hear is "What!?!? No! No God and no religion here."

      Its bullshit.

      They even have a special word for this obfuscation, its called "upaya", its sanskrit and it translates as "skillful means". You have been conned.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:29AM (#182827)

        Got something that looks like a church? yup.
        Got something that looks like a priest caste? yup.
        Got something that looks like a bunch of holy texts? yup.
        Got something that looks like a set of rules to live by? yup.
        Got something that looks like a promise of an afterlife? yup.
        Got something that looks like a bunch of people praying in front of an idol? yup.

        This also applies to capitalism. Praise be the great prophet Adam Smith!
        Hey, it also applies to marxism, please be Karl almighty!

        It also applies to democracy. And to liberalism. And to science itself. And to... well any sufficiently popular idea. Twist a definition enough and you can apply it to anything.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:47AM (#182830)

          No it doesnt.

          You might be able to pick one or two things off my list for the things you mention but you cant tick all the boxes like buddhism does. For instance since when did capitalism or marx promise reincarnation?

          Also, I note you dont refute any of the things on the list wrt buddhism.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @10:20PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @10:20PM (#183149)

            I'll give you the afterlife part, but the rest apply:

            church: pro-capitalist schooling
            priests: economists who advocate for it
            holy texts: Wealth of Nations
            rules: oh yes
            idols: money, celebrities, the wealthy (especially "new money")

            Also, I note you dont refute any of the things on the list wrt buddhism.

            Because the argument is that those aren't a valid criteria.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @08:47PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @08:47PM (#183479)

              If those aren't valid criteria, then there's no such thing as religion at all. Money isn't an idol, and celebrities needn't be worshiped as god. There's no One True Holy Book, and the thing you cite as a "holy book" is anything but. Usually religions ask you to follow arbitrary moral rules, rather than describing how economics works. It simply doesn't fit.

              And I wouldn't say all indoctrination (pro-capitalist schooling, which we do have) is equivalent to church.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:27PM (#182905)

          Does this mean I have to burn my iPhone?

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:48AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:48AM (#182831) Journal

        But besides "upaya", there is "anatman". In Buddhism, everything is "sunya", or empty. It is kind of like ogres being like onions, but more often in Buddhist texts the banana tree is used as an analogy. No substance, no "svabhava", and that means no god, and no soul! Are you one of those early European Protestants who, when they encountered Tibetan Buddhism with the monks and lamas and the hats, assumed they must be a lost branch of Catholicism?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:08AM (#182834)

          Twaddle. To translate it as emptiness, is just plain wrong, better would be "undifferentiated potentiality", its just another word they use to avoid saying GOD, because they couldnt be all like "Oh no! We're Buddhists! No God no religion here! We're cooool!".

          Dont believe the hype.

          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:26AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:26AM (#182838) Journal

            Karma, bro. No god. No salvation. No bondage. Of course, the main teaching of the Buddha hisself was that existence is suffering, and suffering is the result of attachment, and one form of attachment is believing in things like "undifferentiated potentiality". There is no such thing. There is only pratitya-sammuptpada, dependent co-origination. No original cause, no first being, so absolute. Being attached to things like this only causes you to suffer, when Buddhist appear to be cooler than you. (Sidenote, being ethical atheists, Buddhists would never think that themselves, they would just have metta and karuna for your delusion.)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:49AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:49AM (#182844)

              Yes, I am well aware of the drivel your god handed down. Its so full of holes its laughable, if all is emptiness whats karma? You contradict yourself over the course of just two postings.

              Your theologising just goes to prove my point that Buddhism has a GOD. And he laid his word upon you.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:14PM

                by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:14PM (#182868)

                You are sadly ignorant about 'Buddism' and 'Buddist's beliefs. The core of the belief is the eightfold path. There are no dieties, supernatural agents/powers, and most Westerner's totally don't get the concept of reincarnation in general(as presented by Buddism), and fail to realise that there are MANY different Buddist sects that have significant differences.(not all Buddists and sects believe in reincarnation for example)

                You keep projecting your own beliefs onto Buddism, but you are just as wrong and ignorant as it is possible to be. If you assign anything external of 'self' as any power/force/agent in Buddism, you are already so far away from actual Buddism, there is no path back to it. You have lost, and are lost. Period.

                But do keep going with your trolling, it's pretty comical and amusing to this Buddist! It is like listening to your kid explain how the world works to you after their first day of kindergarten. Funny stuff! :-)

                BTW, reincarnation as described to me, was just a simple form of the natural carbon-cycle every organic thing goes through in our universe.

                The view that you, as a whole, are reborn as another whole entity, is bogus to most Buddists. Here is the way it was explained to me:

                There is an energy field permeating the Universe that we call Cosmic Energy/Life force. This is best pictured as a a stream/river of water flowing, connecting everything. When you are born, it is like dipping a cup into this stream to fill it with 'you'.
                'You' are the collection and arrangement of the molecules and atoms in the cup(your body), when you die, that cup of 'you' gets poured back into the stream, and when/if reincarnated, then the cup is just dipped back in, getting almost, or none of the 'original you', back into the cup. So the reincarnated 'you' will NOT be the same 'you' that you were in a previous life.

                The notion that you, as an entity, are wholly reincarnated, is a funny, odd notion to most Buddists. This is where the 'not being aware of your previous lives' comes into the picture. There might be(but probably not) some of the 'old you' dipped up into the reincarnation, but no more than a few atoms/molecules.

                The above is one of the more common concepts of reincarnation to Buddists, but as I mention before, there are different sects, and different kinds of Buddists, and is ONLY applicable to those Buddists that beleive in reincarnation.

                Also keep in mind that there are nutjobs of all stripes, and Buddism has had it's share of them over the centuries, but IMO, Buddism is one of the few religions that science does not cause turmoil to the beliefs, it actually reinforces the belief, as no supernatural claims are needed in Buddism. (your silly projections included)

                When the physics community proclaimed 'we are all just stardust' the Buddists just smiled and were happy that they gained a modern way to explain that aspect of their beliefs.
                Unlike Theists/Diests, science and new knowledge/understanding have not contradicted any core beliefs in Buddism, quite the opposite actually. :-)

                • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM

                  by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM (#182879) Homepage
                  > There is an energy field permeating the Universe that we call Cosmic Energy/Life force.

                  > no supernatural claims are needed in Buddism

                  That looks rather like equivocation.
                  --
                  Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:00PM

                    by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:00PM (#182923)

                    No, it really is not. It is more of a less than optimum translation, for lack of better terminology. Also, I was trying to be brief, so attribute that directly to my efforts, and not the concept.

                    Not all 'Eastern' concepts can be fully and correctly rendered in 'Western' languages.

                    In a nutshell, there is nothing equivical about General Relativity and the idea that mass = energy(the main principle behind 'Atomic Energy', or nuclear energy production). That is the 'field' of 'cosmic energy' I used. That seems obvious to me, but sorry for not being clear about that in my original post. That is specifically why I made the comment referring to Buddists smiling and updating there vocabulary with physics advancements. Quantum mechanics was fine. The idea of quantum entanglement provided a good modern language platform to update the description of that 'cosmic connectiveness' that we all share with the universe, and the concept of the Big Bang theory just reinforced that.

                    That's one of the issues with religion. The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'. Most Buddist sects do not have this problem, as new understanding(science) only gives us better ways to describe concepts that are effectively unchanged by the new understanding gained. We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.

                    And yes, most(if not all) Buddists are atheists; to us, there are no supernatural forces, agents, or influences(thus no dieties to be concerned with) to have to account for.

                    To be perfectly clear about all of this, I only claim to be a Buddist when someone insists I HAVE to have a religous belief. I was highly exposed to it in my youth[1], and I found it is the only religion that I can accept. I am not what you would call an actual, or practising Buddist. I mostly use it to fill in a blank on a form when 'no thanks' will not be accepted as an answer.

                    Between 'the Golden Rule', the 'Eight-fold Path', and what my culture and society indoctrinated me with, I have my own 'rules' in life to follow. I highly value the 'Golden Rule' as a guiding principle, and science just reinforces that for me. It is a really comfortable and practical/useful 'place' to be, mentally(and as a subset: 'spiritually') in life. YMMV.

                    I hope that takes care of the mistaken impression of equivocation you had. I will shoulder the blame for not being more specific and clear by omitting this explaination for brevity's sake earlier. :-)

                    I'm starting to regret not just writing all of this up concisely and posting it to my journal, and then just linking to that, but Oh Well.....

                    If the subject actually interests you, the wikipedia article on 'the Noble Eightfold Path' in Buddhism is pretty good, and there are countless youtube vids featuring the Dalai Lama on science and Buddhist philosophy.(more correct than 'religion' for a label, but whatever- it is no matter of importance)

                    [1]And to top it all off, what I was exposed to for many years was the particularly quirky Japanese adaptation of Buddism commonly known as Zen Buddism! Most 'classical' Buddists are not entirely comfortable with 'Zen Buddism' from my experience. Again, YMMV.

                    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:05PM

                      by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:05PM (#182998) Journal

                      to us, there are no supernatural forces, agents, or influences(thus no dieties to be concerned with) to have to account for.

                      Well, as far as I know Buddhism believes in some form of reincarnation. This clearly is something supernatural.

                      Also, Karma means there has to be something that distinguishes between "good" and "bad" actions in a moral sense. But moral is not a concept found in nature, therefore anything that is based on it can only be either human-made (but Karma isn't human-made, is it?) or supernatural.

                      --
                      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
                      • (Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:53PM

                        by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:53PM (#183087)

                        Karma is man made, just as is Buddhism. It is nothing more than a philosophy on how to live a 'right/correct' life. Buddhism is not a religion as Western Cultures view religion. Not all Buddhist sects incorporate reincarnation, and not all Buddhists accept it, even if it is part of their sects philosophy.

                        Just consider 'you reap what you sow' as a good defination/translation for Karma. It is a human-made concept and describing word. There is nothing devine or sacred about Karma. It is in essence, just a flowery wording of one aspect of cause and effect as it applies to human interactions in society.

                        I question your statement: "But moral is not a concept found in nature,..."
                        Coincidently, I just watched an interesting youtube vid(still loaded in another tab) of a talk given by Dr. Andy Thomson titled "Why We Believe in Gods" at the 2009 American Atheist in Atlanta, GA. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg/ [youtube.com]-link to vid)

                        He addresses that far better than I can, so instead of trying to argue/debate with me, I will refer you to his interesting talk. Also, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chris Hutchins(RIP), and MANY others have all addressed this in lectures and debates...ad nauseum.

                        Not only am I an atheist, I don't even think religion has had a legitimate place in the modern world, and has not for at least 150 years. Religion is a harmful, self-imposed crutch, that should be immediately tossed aside, IMO.
                        I only make a claim to Buddhism as a placeholder/answer for the 'Religion?:_________' question on documents for the few times 'No Thanks!' would not be accepted. The only reason I use Buddhist for that 'answer' is that I was heavily exposed to the quirky Zen Buddhism, and it is about the only 'religion' that I can half-assed claim as a possible answer for that blank without gagging. I don't claim to be an actual Buddist, but that is the only answer that won't get me lynched/attacked in the 'Bible Belt' where I live.

                        Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy on self-improvement, and how to treat those around you, and how to treat the world around you. A set of instructions for a happier life, if you will. It's focus is on self, not external to self.

                    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:01PM

                      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:01PM (#183026) Homepage
                      Minor nit - Special relativity gives the "mass = energy" equivalence (except it doesn't really), General Relativity is the "mass = geometry of space-time" equivalence (which I understand less about).

                      > The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'

                      Absolutely. That's one of the issues that I have with them, and is related to why I consider myself an "ignostic" or "igtheist" - I demand a clear definition of all terms such that they only rely on previously agreed premises before any meaningful discussion can be entered into, and all religions (including the supersymmetry - I'm perfectly fair about how I apply this) fail at this first hurdle. Buddhists saying their life energy field is just the same as the quantum fields which particle physicists study is to me a cheap get-out. That's what Feynmann would call cargo cult science. It's attempting to look like it says something about reality with a scientifically supportable perspective, but it doesn't. No feature that they claim it has is defined in terms of the physical, or should I say mathematical, properties of the quantum fields.

                      > We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.

                      You do make non-testable claims though. You shouldn't piggy-back on scientific concepts and then do non-science with them. That's pretty outlandish.

                      I used to share a flat with the maintainer of the talk.religion.buddhism FAQ, and I used to like discussions about not just his beliefs, but those of other branches of buddhism too. Unfortunately, we never delved into these deep layers of mysticism, we spent more time discussing more superficial practical aspects, or ethical/moral ones. Which was a shame, I learnt a great deal about a lot of things from him.
                      --
                      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                      • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:02PM

                        by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:02PM (#183056)

                        I agree about it being a form of mysticism.

                        The only thing I have any objection or real disagreement is calling it a cargo cult science. Buddhism does not really focus on the 'science' of the natural world. This focus by Western folk as a means to refute it as a religion is a 'WTF?' experience to me. The focus and 'purpose' of Buddhism is more about how to think and act better. That is why I keep repeating myself with the 'if it concerns external forces/agents, it is not of Buddhism' refrain. As I said several times previously, I ONLY claim to be a Buddhist when someone will not accept the 'No thanks!' I always put in the 'Religion?' blank on documents, and I claim Buddhism is a phylosophy, and not a religion.(IMO)

                        I'm just trying to answer questions to the best of my ability to use modern, Western language to explain concepts that do not translate accurately.

                        If you are trying to class Buddhism as a religion so you can refute the validity of it as religion, then you've already misunderstood the whole point of Buddhist philosophy(it is not a religion), and are just spinning your wheels.

                        So, if you want to debate Buddhism further, you will have to find someone that is actually qualified/more knowledgable. I'm not a scholar of Buddism, I was exposed to Zen Buddhism, and use it as the most plausible(if erroneous) placeholder to fill in blanks on documents when 'No thanks!' is not accepted.

                        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:32PM

                          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:32PM (#183077) Homepage
                          I certainly don't want to refute it as a religion, no matter what you are implying by the choice of the word "refute". Don't get me wrong, I have a lot more respect for Buddhism than I do for pretty much any other religion, I often find myself standing up for it, and using it for counter-examples when arguing against cookie-cutter theists (those with no original thought on the matter of their theism, as they've never had to think about it at all, who for example think that "religion" by definition means "belief in a god"). Amystic atheists certainly have no monopoly on "Good without god", and I think due to the perception of spirituality and rejection of selfishness and greed, Buddhists probably have a far better rap for that. I accept that some Buddhists object to it being classified as a religion, but I believe that's committing the same flaw as the theists - those properties that define their philosophy are the properties which I say define a "religion". (Compare that list of arguments which some AC used to "prove" entirely ineffectually, that Buddha was a god, the AC clearly sees the trappings of religions, and erroniously concludes "therefore the head guy was your god". He may be wrong in his logic, but he was correctly identifying trappings of religions) This is why one must define terms first.
                          --
                          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                          • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:59PM

                            by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:59PM (#183092)

                            Peace, then. We are on the same 'page' it would seem. :-)

                            ...I have a lot more respect for Buddhism than I do for pretty much any other religion, I often find myself standing up for it,..."
                            This is the position I feel I am in for this discussion.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:01AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:01AM (#183237)

                      >Japanese adaptation of Buddism commonly known as Zen Buddism!

                      Oh what a fib! Zen is completely independent! You lot just co-opted it to look good!
                      I can speak the whole of Zen and not even mention Buddha!

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM (#182880)

                  You are sadly ignorant about 'Buddism' and 'Buddist's beliefs.

                  There is no point to this spiritualism nonsense, either. I don't see the need to be part of any religion whatsoever, and nor do I see a need to play word games with "reincarnation"; there is no such thing unless you use a very odd definition of it to make it a completely secular concept, sort of like how more and more of the bible has become 'metaphorical' over time.

                  So I fail to see the point. Why even play these games at all?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:46PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:46PM (#182891)

                    So I fail to see the point. Why even play these games at all?

                    Because humans are hardwired [psychiatrictimes.com] to be religious/spiritual. Just like not everyone has the same hair or skin color, not everyone has the same drive re:religion/spirituality, but its something most people can't really avoid.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:19PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:19PM (#183358)

                      Humans are hardwired to do many foolish things. We should use our brains and reject illogical practices, however hard that may be, not surrender to them.

                      And whether that is truly the case is debatable. This brain scanning nonsense is quite subjective and carries with it lots of assumptions; the same is true of psychology and the other social 'sciences'. I'll wait until real science shows what you claim, but I don't doubt it is true.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:24PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:24PM (#183359)

                      Or maybe human beings are social animals and would be better served by forming secular groups than irrational fairy tales and new age spiritualism.

                • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:25PM

                  by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:25PM (#182903) Journal

                  My roommate in college was Thai and a devout Buddhist and had interned (gone to seminary?) in Thailand as a monk and said as much as you have, but I have subsequently spent years in Asia and have been to temples from Japan to Southeast Asia. Buddhism is indistinguishable in practice from any other religion. If Non-attachment were the universal, core tenet of that faith you assert it to be, then no Buddhist would get their feathers ruffled should an irreverent foreigner deface their temples. But go ahead and test it: carve your initials into a post at Pulguksa or jump the barrier at Wat Phra Kaew to grab the emerald Buddha and you'll find out in a hot damn hurry how much a non-religion Buddhism really is.

                  In truth it's like anything else, yet another flavor of, "I'm better than you." Buddhism's version of it only happens to take it to a passive-aggressive extreme.

                  That's not to say there isn't a lot of value in Buddhist teachings. There is. But that comes to light if you can be the one guy in a thousand that actually practices what is preached. Same thing can be said for Christianity or Islam or Judaism or what-have-you. Still, don't be surprised that if you are that guy the other 999 "Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Jews" around you look at you like you're weird.

                  --
                  Washington DC delenda est.
                  • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:34PM

                    by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:34PM (#182943)

                    For more on my views, see my reply to 'FatPhil'.(it's too much to repeat here)

                    ...how much a non-religion Buddhism really is.

                    To be clear, I do not think the 'religion' label can be correctly applied to Buddhism. I see it more of a philosophy, and only used the term 'religion' so as not to get bogged down into semantics in the discussion.
                    My error, and you have my aplogies for any misunderstanding.(again, see my reply to 'FatPhil')
                    As for Thailand, having spent some time there, the Thai people have their own ideas about a lot of different things, not just religion! It is a very interesting place, full of fascinating history and cultures...some of the cultures REALLY clash.(witness the frequency of political 'coups' that occur in Thailand) So don't make the mistake of painting with too broad a brush there. At the same time, I will not dispute your roomate's stories, either.

                    Still, don't be surprised that if you are that guy the other 999 "Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Jews" around you look at you like you're weird.

                    No surprise, that has been reality for me these past decades.
                    To be honest, I couldn't care less about other people thinking I'm weird. Really. What others think about me is so far down on my list of priorities, that it may as well not exist as a line item on the priority list. (see my posting history here, and on /. for supporting evidence for my claim-the words/comments speak for themselves)

                    BTW, I never made the claim that I was an expert on Buddhism, and was really only addressing that specific troll about some of his misunderstandings, so I was being overly broad-brushed. Had I known I was 'volunteered' to be the acting Dalai Lama's spokesman here, I would have just wrote up a position paper in my journal, and just linked to that. Since that genie escaped the bottle, I have just been doing my best, without going into 'long-winded lecture' mode. My error. :-)

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:57AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:57AM (#183236)

                  Yeah first, if you're going to come on as an authority on the subject maybe you should learn to spell the word correctly?

                  Second...

                  >There is an energy field permeating the Universe that we call Cosmic Energy/Life force.

                  Yup, GOD, you buddhists keep bending over backwards to say there isnt one then you come up with this stuff. Sheesh. Just say GOD and get it over with.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:45PM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:45PM (#182890) Homepage
              > No salvation. No bondage

              What have you done with nirvana and samsara?
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:27PM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:27PM (#183039) Journal

                > No salvation. No bondage

                What have you done with nirvana and samsara?

                Nothing, they are right behind you. Or all around you. But this does point out the difference between infantile religions and Buddhism. Delusion and extinguishment of delusion are not the same things as sin and redemption. Theism is, as Freud suspected, the projection of the child's perception of the parents into a fantasy realm. The doctrine of the Fall and Original sin are a child's fear of "being in trouble", and salvation is when the Big Daddy in the Sky forgives and loves us again. There is no doctrine of sin as disobedience in Buddhism, and no doctrine of "grace". This is because there is no god. (And please, let's not get started on bodhisattvas!)

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:38PM (#182888)

        Got something that looks like a church? yup.
        Got something that looks like a priest caste? yup.
        Got something that looks like a bunch of holy texts? yup.
        Got something that looks like a set of rules to live by? yup.
        Got something that looks like a promise of an afterlife? yup.
        Got something that looks like a bunch of people praying in front of an idol? yup.

        And how, exactly, do all these red herrings lead you to the conclusion that Buddha is a god?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:09AM (#183238)

          Uh cos I've been in buddhist temples around the world and they all have people praying in front of a big golden idol of him? You can deny it all you want but he's your GOD :O

          • (Score: 1) by deroby on Monday May 18 2015, @10:15AM

            by deroby (2492) on Monday May 18 2015, @10:15AM (#184441)

            I'm still not sure that makes him a god. Maybe we have a different concept of the word/concept of 'god'. To you it seems to be more akin to 'someone idolized', for me a god is more 'some being with super-powers', where super-powers are well above what should be physically possible (e.g. instantly turn people into salt-pillars)

            In other words, it's not because a lot of people pray to the statue of a guy on a cross that this makes him a god; it's because they believe there is a god who spent a crucial part of his career on a cross that they direct their prayers to a representation of it. Likewise, it's not because people worship the statue of a guy who died about 2300 years ago that this makes him a god; it's because those people consider the teachings of this guy of such importance that they are spending time and resources into whatever it is they built to honour him.

            For a more 'objective' take on it, according to wikipedia:

            The concept of God as described by theologians commonly includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence.

            Now I'm not an expert on buddhism but AFAIK that Siddharta guy was considered "a wise teacher", I doubt he had 'infinite knowledge' although I'm willing to consider it a grey zone. As for 'unlimited power': he was just a guy walking the land, I've yet to hear the first miracle he performed. There may be statues of him all around the world, but that's where his 'omnipresence' ends I'm afraid. Omnibenevolence ... well, in a 'do-no-harm-to-others' you could say he had this one down quite well... as do quite some othermore contemporary people I can think of and who'll nobody confuse for a god. "Divine simplicity" goes beyond my understanding so can't say, but "eternal and necessary existence" are surely off the book, the guy may have lived a long life, he died just like all the rest of us (will).

            All in all I it seems to me like he "fails" the test on several points.

            my 2 cents.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:59PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:59PM (#182899) Homepage
        All the things you list are not the existence of a god. It's a religion, yes, and it has mysticism, yes, but there is no requirements for a god. (It also has no requirements for the non-existence of god, it's possible to be a Buddhist and believe in a god or gods). The closest your argument gets to even needing a response is your final one. However, you have asserted that people are *praying*? As far as I understand buddhism, there is no praying - the meditative process is not a dialogue, there is no external agent being called upon. So even that can be dismissed.

        The other claims are so weak they support calling Linux Torvalds, Richard Stallmann, Gene Rodenberry, Dennis Ritchie, Ayn Rand, John Keynes, and a million other people "gods".
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:54PM (#182955)

          That idol thing is basically interchangeable with a deity for all practical purposes. I always thought those lavish buddhist temples with the gold-plated 20-foot statues of buddha [wantchinatimes.com] had really lost their way.

      • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:25PM

        by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:25PM (#182904)

        You have listed everything that makes a religion BUT a god!

        I'm not an expert but I'm pretty confident that Buddhists do NOT believe:
        That the Buddha created the universe
        That the Buddha is omnipresent
        That the Buddha is infinite
        That the Buddha is omnipotent

        The Buddha did give people a set of rules to live by but not commandments made up by himself like a god would. They were more like natural laws that he discovered and shared to help others.

        This is where my knowlege of Buddhism gets pretty thin. Maybe the Buddha has some attributes of a god? He doesn't exactly die although as a non-Buddhist samsara is kind of difficult to understand. Is one who achieves enlightenment all knowing? I don't know. But.. even if so.. he only has those attributes because he is enlightened. According to Buddhism that is something that everyone can eventually achieve by following the path. So if the Buddha was a god wouldn't everyone be one?

        Did I get this right? Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting Budhism? If so it was not my intent! I'm not claiming to know it all! Let me know what I got wrong.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:16PM (#183002)

          You have listed everything that makes a religion BUT a god!

          I'm not an expert but I'm pretty confident that Buddhists do NOT believe:
          That the Buddha created the universe
          That the Buddha is omnipresent
          That the Buddha is infinite
          That the Buddha is omnipotent

          How oddly monotheistic of you to think that any of those are requirements for godhood.

          There is only one requirement for godhood - that people worship you, and even that might be not be necessary. When you look at all the minor dieties in all the polytheistic religions worshipping itself doesn't seem to be necessary to qualify, perhaps simply having people believe in you is enough.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 15 2015, @03:26PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday May 15 2015, @03:26PM (#183361)

        Christianity isn't a religion; it's a philosophy. That's a fact, you see.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:06PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:06PM (#182901) Journal

      Uhhh, as a Buddhist (well mostly just the label that fits best), I'm pretty sure that I've been under the distinct impression the whole time..... that we have no gods and are godless. Buddha was not a god, nor do I think most Buddhists believe that he was either, so the rest is just supernatural. I come to the defense of Buddhism by objecting to the notion that I must believe in a god, or gods, or grouped with those that do.

      That might be technically true on some level, but I've been to Buddhist temples and shrines from Japan's Kiyomizu and Sanjusangendo in Kyoto to Pulguksa in South Korea, to Wat Phra Kaew in Bangkok, with all their statues of Buddha and the saints/avatars and I assert that in practice there is no difference between theistic religions and Buddhism, and that for all intents and purposes Buddha is a god. After all, nobody builds temples to Kierkegaard or will shoot you with an automatic weapon if you touch the emerald statue of Kant.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:14PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:14PM (#183001) Journal

        I think there must be a widespread painting religion. There are lots of temples with paintings (called museums), and the people there get very angry if you damage one of the paintings.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by morgauxo on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:08PM

      by morgauxo (2082) on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:08PM (#182902)

      I think I remember learning in Comparitive Studies of Religion class, which I took at a state university that Buddhism did 'sort of' include the Hindu gods. What I remember being taught was that Buddhism originated from within Hinduism and that it the story goes that the Buddha converted all of the gods. So.. they are no longer worshipped by Buddhists as they are now on the path the same as any other Buddhist. But.. that is still a belief that they exist right?

      So.. did they teach us wrong?