To me it seems like many of the world’s popular belief systems are regularly and viciously challenged by non-believers and atheists/agnostics – at least on the Internet, which is the medium I’m most familiar with personally.
Buddhism, however, doesn’t seem to get much of the same treatment. To be sure, there are aspects of it that are mere “lifestyle guidelines” or “philosophies”, but there are mystical elements too (e.g., karma, reincarnation, cosmology).
Why aren’t these debunked or attacked more often? Or do I just not see these attacks as much because English speaking cultures are more familiar with the Abrahamic traditions?
…or damn people to hell. Encourages total personal responsibility and accountability for one’s thoughts, feelings and actions rather than blaming demons for misfortune or falsely attributing accomplishments to God.
I think that’s the biggest reason, yes. After all it’s common to hear people call the Abrahamic faiths “The Big Three” even though Judaism has far, far fewer adherents than the other two (or Hinduism, Buddhism, and a bunch of others). Those are the Big Three in the West, and that’s where a lot of the skeptics and debunkers are. Perhaps it’s different for skeptics in Asia.
It may also help that Buddhism in the West is seen as a philosophy as much as a religion, and it has a reputation for being a lot more mellow and less aggressive than many other religions - which is not really historically accurate; there is an MPSIMS thread about that - but I’m sure that contributes as well. In the West I think people largely associated Buddhism with nonviolence, lack of attachment to material things, and being nice and cool to everybody. That’s pretty hard to argue with. However I have heard some people take issue with the idea of karma: they say it blames people for their own misfortunes and encourages people to blame others for their own problems on the assumption that they must have done something to deserve it in a past life.
Actually, on another forum I frequent I’ve just today been pointing out to someone that no, just because Buddhism doesn’t have an actual god as a focus, it isn’t some kind of intractable problem for atheists.
In the West, thanks to the overwhelming majority of religion being god-centered there’s a strong tendency for people (including atheists, and including myself) to lump together “atheist” and “religious skeptic”. Usually without even thinking about the distinction.
Edit: Also, a great deal of criticism and complaint from atheists is reactive. A response to the claims and actions of believers. With so little activity from Buddhists, there’s little to bring forth responses from most atheists; there’s more than enough activity from non-Buddhists to keep atheists busy.
Atheism and Devotion in Buddhism
There’s also the aspect that the industrialized west in modernity has a history of indulging fairly aggressive critical questioning and attacks on the religious beliefs of the dominant culture. I’m not sure that any similar group of critics would be tolerated outside western societies or the most advanced Asian counties.
You’ll also note that you see a lot less criticism of Hinduism, despite there being over a billion Hindus. That’s because the vast majority of atheists you’ll find on an English speaking message board aren’t in nations where Hinduism is common, not because atheists have some special regard for it.
What is laughable about buddhism is that it’s one of those ‘religions’ that’s not quite a ‘religion’ so it’s ‘ok’ to be associated with - and is often latched onto by people whom want to seem hip and happening, but not tied down or committed to such a ‘politically incorrect’ religion such as Christianity.
There’s two parts to Buddhism:
A) Self management and discipline - which is something all people should aspire to and you don’t need a religion to achieve
B) The social/celebrity following which has made it a cult.
Notice it was the popular amongst liberals and we live in a more liberal world.
It’s been the trendy thing for a while now, only pushed aside a bit by scientology in the last decade.
I have no idea why you used the word cult here. It’s completely wrong. The lack of organization or familiarity with some of the details of Buddhist practice makes it very un-cultlike.
I have no idea where you got any of this either. That trendy view of Buddhism began in the 1950s, I think, and I’m sure the trendiness peaked around that time. Scientology is not at all trendy among liberals or anyone else. There may have been a brief period where that was true decades ago, but most people who are aware of Scientology know it as a weird cult and treat it as a joke. That’s been the case for a long time.
How about, a large portion of Buddhists are atheists in the US.
Most people start the atheistic path by seeing inconsistencies and hypocrisies in religions. This leads to the eventual conclusion that they don’t believe in God.
Nowhere in this process does Buddhism come into the equation, so why go after it.
Also, Like others have said, Buddhist’s haven’t been as intrusive in the US as Christians have.
If leading Buddhists were starting wars, pushing racist and sexist agendas like Christians, Buddhists would be all over them.
My understanding is that the Beats popularized Buddhism for the first time (if someone did before them, please let us know.)
I know Scientology was partially based on the Vedic scriptures. If it was ever hip or trendy, it was before I can remember. Maybe the mid to late 70s when Travolta joined?
Buddhists cults do exist in Asia. And in Korea Buddhism has a history of corruption. Once the Chosun dynasty started Buddhism was considered taboo because it was considered to have led to the decay and downfall of the previous dynasty.
I get the feeling that a lot of Westerners see it more as a philosophy than a religion, but in Asia it is very much a religion, and believers do the same kind of crazy things as followers of other religions do. You get Buddhists proselytizing and scamming people out of money right alongside the Christians. (I’m not saying all of them do this, but they do exist.)
The obvious answer is that there’s no god in Buddhism, so there’s nothing for an atheist to debunk. Perhaps religious skeptics could take exception to it, but it’s so squishy that there’s not much to grab hold of.
There are many different sects and varieties of Buddhism. I have very limited experience with Zen, but in that little experience, I’ve seen no focus on any supernatural phenomena. There are elements which, if taken literally, could be seen as mystical, but aren’t intended to be taken that way.
I’ll consider myself an atheist Buddhist up until it seems like Buddhism demands that I believe in the supernatural. If that happens, then I suppose I’ll be an atheist Buddhist-like meditator. The meditation is beneficial either way, whether I’m reflecting on ‘om’ or ‘tungsten’ or whatever.
From what I have learned of Buddhism (full disclosure: I studied and practiced at the Nyingma Institute for a couple years in the 1980s), it isn’t theistic. But to call it atheistic would miss the mark too. The best term for it would be simply nontheistic. Buddhism says whether the gods exist or not, it doesn’t make any difference to you working on your own liberation (or, for bodhisattvas, helping other people with theirs). To Buddhists, the gods may or may not exist, but either way they’re irrelevant to what the point of Buddhism is all about.
Now and then there are surges of popularity (yeah, especially in California) that are capitalized upon by exploitive “gurus” in a vaguely cult-like manner. Some guy is always selling a new set of videos on self-realization, etc. These guys are rarely practicing “real” Buddhism, but, rather, something home-grown and woo-ish, with only one thing a$ the $ole object.
Back in 1962, fundamentalist Buddhists (!) had a huge influence in Burmese politics, including forcing passages of laws that “respected life” – such as banning pesticides, or forbidding the slaughter of beef for hides for leather. The results were the loss of much of the country’s stored food, and the unemployment of much of the country’s Islamic minority, among which leatherworking was a major industry. Against that kind of Buddhist, modern atheists have very, very energetic opposition.
Is this true? My understanding of things in Burma at the time is that most changes wrought were informed by socialist ideals rather than Buddhist ones. For instance the leather industry was nationalised not banned.
FWIW, I’ve had a few atheist/Buddhist discussions in GD, most delving into the extent of supernaturalism in Buddhist belief and practice. I have yet to observe a Hindu/atheist discussion there.
Until now?
Googling I see: Ask the (atheist) Hindu from 2005 and another on Hinduism from 2007, both started by the same poster.