I dont think I can say it contributes to my life. Well, it contributes something like motivation to do good things, just as atheism does. However Buddhism covers points atheism does not and vice versa... Which why the two pair up quite nicely... An example of this would be Buddhism advocates not only to help your fellow man, but other beings as well... Atheism on the other hand advocates scientific research. They are intertwined with each other in my opinion because Atheism advocates doing good things as does Buddhism. Buddhism advocates science as well.

Read this wikipedia document on Buddhism and science, its very interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

 

So Why bother mixing the two some of you might be asking? The purpose is to have an even broader view of the world! Pairing them makes an atheist or a Buddhist more rational, open minded, intelligent, and more compassionate...

Those attributes are something a lot of people in general lack, which is why things like religion exist which would make us better off if they didnt exist...

 

As for practicing buddhism, I would say one would practice it just as he or she does Atheism... That is, by doing good things, reading, meditating, and thinking about what The Buddha is teaching you. 

Even though I would agree Buddhism is not a religion, there are two beleif claims that all BUddhists hold to with no real evidence to back it up: 1) Reicarnation 2) Nirvana.  Both are incredibly fascniating metaphysical viewpoints to hold but, reincarnation at least, requires a bit too much blind faith to buy into.  Nirvana, on the other hand, is just their uderstanding of nothingness.

 

IN regards to teh question about how does one follow buddhism, well that is outlined on the 8-fold path which, as has been put already, pretty striaght forward and basic since they are suggestions like don;t try to hram anything, don't be too prideful, etc.  Almost the exact opposite of any modern monotheistic doctrine of "Thou shalt" type commandments coming from an external entity which cannot be defined.

Well, anyone can lable things what they want and lables change based on peoples definition. My definition of a "religion" is similar to what i see in most dictionarys:

beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

Buddhism does not fall under that definition, The Budda is not a god. However i found this definition as well:

 personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

 By that definition, you could even call atheism a religion. How does the belief in reincarnation make Buddhism a religion? Does that mean the belief in anything far fetched is a religion as well like faster than light travel? On the subject of Buddhists praying, i dont think their version of prayer is the same as a religion such as Christianity. Praying is addressing a Deity, since there is no Deity in Buddhism, there actually is no prayer. 

 I personally dont believe in reincarnation. How could I, there is no possible way to test that idea, (currently) nor is there any evidence to support such a thing.  So really i dont fully agree with  things like that in  buddhism.. But then again, im  still very  new to this philosophy...

I can agree with that. I should have specified that I am part of the "philosophical" part of buddhism... The main factor in my movitation to select this secondary lable was to distance myself from the stigma of atheism. Most people thing atheists are horrible, evil, bad, etc type of people...

 

I didnt select buddhism to help me find my ethics... I had already found them way before this... It was these ethics i previously had which gave me the idea and reason to select buddhism, since essentially I had the same ideas as a buddhist... So in summary:

I am an atheist who does not worship any deity or believe in any supernatural powers. I do however, possess the positive ethics of a Buddhist... That is what I want society to read my lable as... 

I just posted this in another thread, and it works here

I'm joining Scientology. It has no god. I'm not going for the whole aliens thing or anything lie that... That's crazy! However, I'm going to shell out all the money to keep up with it, not see any physcians, hound people that criticize me by threatening them with baseless lawsuits, essentially deny the holocaust, and... You get the point? It's fucking stupid to grab shit from one belief system just so you can have a fucking label. If you're an atheist, you're an atheist. If you're a Buddhist, say you're a fucking Buddhist. Grow some balls. Say what you are. If you're ashamed to be an atheist, yet identify with Buddhism more... GUESS WHAT! You're a Buddhist! Well, rub my belly and give me all of your worldly possesions! I think I hit the nail on the fucking head. And I'm only coming off as angry. Right now, I'm eating Poptarts and drinking Coke. I'm actually pretty mellow right now, but I feel like I need to get my point across and "it's okay" hasn't worked before and now we got this other asshole justifying it. "And then there's this asshole..." That's the sense of word. I don't really know you, so I don't necessarily think you're an asshole. You know that a lot of what Buddha says is what Jesus said and what the Old Testament said and what parts of the Koran have said and what a lot of secular philosphers have said? Are you going to take their labels, too? If you're looking for a label, then call yourself whatever you like, but if you're looking for a life path, the best way to go is DIY. You don't need a label. It's like that bullshit hyphenated American stuff. Don't look to others for advice on how to be yourself, just be yourself. You don't need to meditate and chant to calm down. Eat Poptarts and drink Coke. Fuck it... relax in whatever way you can. That's the trick behind Buddhism. If every time you get mad, you pause and collect yourself, you'd probably seem fairly calm. BUT! You'd have pent up anger. That's not healthy for anyone. "To deny our impulses is to deny the very thing that makes us human." That's from the Matrix. I figured I'd throw it in since we were talking about philosophical bullshit.

That is exactly what im trying to say... I think labels are stupid... However like them or not, thats how the world works... The world labels everything... So, I decided to use this secondary Buddhist label as a way to remove the sigma of Atheism..

 Its unfortunate that I would even have to search for a secondary label, but you have to remember most theists are really closed minded... I dont want someone to hate be just because they think i lack good ethics..

To be clear with what im saying, to have "good ethics" does not require one to be a part of a religion. Obviously a true atheist has good ethics, BUT the world has labeled them as having BAD ethics because they are atheist...

So to convey this fact that I have good ethics even though I am atheist, I tell them i identify with buddhism... The world has labeled a true buddhist as having good ethics, ethics which i already possess... But most people speak in the language of labels, making it nessesary for me to have this secondary label.

 In Summary the label tells this to the world:

I am atheist, but i am not a bad person... 

While I respect your intent you are making 2 fundamental mistakes:

1- Athiesm says nothing about a persons ethics, politics, height,weight or what they had for breakfast . To state, "I am an athiest" means ,"I am convinced there is no god" and nothing else. There are fascist athiests, agnostic athiests, strong athiest etc

2- Attaching the label of a world religion to your self identification will do nothing for your image in the minds of the religious other than those who use the same label - if you live in California or the far east calling yourself a buddhist might help you "go along to get along" in Uncle Tom speak but Christians and Muslims will still be suspicous of you - southern baptists hate catholics and suni hate shia, you will never be able to please everyone . You are playing into a game you cannot possibly win. History has proven appeasment to be a self destructive policy.

 

Most former thiests I know go through a questing phase before rejecting mysticism all together. When I abandoned my catholic upbringing I flirted with all sorts of alternative BS - from Kaballah, to  Taoism, to Golden Dawn Hermetics and even LaVey's satanism and Hubbard's scientology. While I learned from each of these traditions I ultimately rejected all of them because eventually my reason was able to find the flaws in each. 

If you are afraid to publicly admit your athiesm that is fine, but don't try to appease and mollify the believers - you are better off just avoiding the subject all together and refusing to define yourself by other peoples labels and keep your responses to specific issues when entering political/philosophical discussion.  My advice is to continue your education and develop a philosophy that provides you  courage to speak your own beliefs with conviction.

 

 

But in the fascist regimes, the people had no real choice. It was either bow down or be killed. As for Lincoln, just because people like what he did for the nation, doesn't mean people think he's a god. Same thing with Kennedy. Kennedy was a fuck up. People might have a certain nostalgia for his presidency, but I don't think that can honestly be considered a form of worship. Admiration and nostalgia do not a religion make.

 

Again, you cannot take a random quote from a random believer and feel it is representative of all buddhists or even of the core teachings of buddhism.  Now do all BUddhists schools teach the concept of Karma? Probably.  Do all buddhists schools agree on how Karma works exactly?  No.  You might want to reply "the same can be said about the teachings of jesus".  Perhaps but Jesus was pretty clear that eternal damnation, however a certain sect wants to describe it, is something you do not want to go and the only way to escape was to follow him, thus, making the punishment/reward system concrete in the teachings of Christianity.  Essentially, it is possible for someone to "work off" Karma in their lifetime without having to become a buddhist or a followerer of the Buddha.  In Christianity, you are shit out of luck unless you read the new testament everyday and worship Jesus.  To be clear, I am nottrying to show that BUddhism is better than Christianity, rather, I am trying to show how different Buddhism really is from Christianity.  The only two areas of attack one can make on Buddhism is the beleif in reicarnation and the overall vagueness of it since reincarnation is entirely faith based and vagueness doesn't really provide any answers (of course Buddhism is supposed to help one FIND the way, not necessarily be THE Way).

There is simply no evidence to support the notions of karma, reincarnation or substitutional atonement (the buddhist version, not the christian one ...)  I totally understand that Buddhism and Christianity are seperate belief systems, and there are non-theistic aspect of Buddhism ... but both are equal in the sense that they both have the same amount of evidence supporting their metaphysical claims: zero.

 

I do agree with you on this point with one caviat.  It can be argued that there is some truth to Karma, albiet in a very loose understanding of the term.  Foer example, lets say your mother drank heavily while pregnant with you.  Her actions would have drastic effects on you growing up as a child becuase of it that you can do nothing about.  Of course, this is a very loose use of Karma and totally ignores reicarnation.

Imagine you're a young piano student with aspirations to be a great pianist.

In the beginning, it's important that you pay close attention to where you fingers are on the keys. You concentrate on using the correct techniques and hand movements. This process of observing your physical technique gives you a firm foundation from which you can build on.

However, if you really want to be a great pianist, you must leave the physical observer behind. Fingers become notes, which together become chords. You start to focus on the more subtle aspects of playing, such as "What feeling was the composer attempting to express?", "How can I instill that feeling in my audience?" Music starts to flow though you like water, instead of a series of discrete steps.  

At this point, your physical observer only distracts you from the music. It is a hinderance, not a help. As such you discard it.

The same could be said for a journey which requires you to cross a river. Before you cross the river you must carry a raft. Once you reach the bank of the river, you place the raft in the water and float to the other side, However, once you've cross the river, the raft is no longer necessary. Continuing to carry it just slows you down. So you discard it.

It is the same with Buddhism. Buddhist teachings simply serve as a way to help you observe how you process information, ideas and create concepts from reality. However, once you learn how to step back and see how this process works, you shift your focus to being present, in the here and now.

If you focus on the teachings, they distract you from being present, so you discard them.  

I think this also reflects the idea that the world isn't black and white. The teachings do not have value in all contexts.

Note: I don't believe in reincarnation or the metaphysical aspects of karma and enlightenment. But I do find value in the teachings of suffering and illusion. I see Zen Buddhism as a philosophy, not a religion. 

Curiously i also has been atracted to budism.

 

While Budhism acept the existance of gods,  in general, they are not considered importat to the destiny of man. I thing  it was Nieztche who called it "an atheist religion"

 The interesting part of the Budhism is that it has a set of teaching for the common man, to be happy, Not to get happines inan afterlife. 

It reminds my a lot to the teachings of Epicuro, who search to get a way of living that makes for the most happines and less sufering.. a way that did not inlcude well prepared foods and expensive wines...  The modern usage of epicureims has little todo with the teachings of epicuro.

 Now, i thing that a bufhist life can be pretty booring, but at the same time, it can help us to counteract some of the stress of modern life.

 

 

i am more familiar with kadampha budhism (a monk is freind of mine).

Acording to him, the reincarnation of budhism is diffrerent from hinduhism, since it refferes only to the continuation of life, not of concious or any methaphisical entity, like soul, and karma idoes not refer to "destint" but an indibidual stae, dereived form the activitues of the individual.

I am aware that not all variants of budhism think the same. yet one of the values of budhism is certain skepticism, even of it´s own believes.

By the way.. muslim do not try to destroy the world... fundamentalist is what tries to destroy those whoe do not think like them.. no matter if is muslim or christian.

Historically islam has been more tolerant to othere religions than christianins, specially to non christian religions.

Curiously , one of the most interest claims of budhism is that monoteism is the root of intolerance. Caroding to them, Those who belive in only one god, ussualy consider that their religion is the only one that has the right to exist or that they have the divine right to impose they´re own point of view... Does it sound familiar?...

 

The reason for such disparity between Buddhist sects is also one of the, if not "the", biggest difference between Buddhism and Atheism...

Buddhism is not Atheist, which is to say... It does not denounce the existence of a deity, which Atheism clearly does. At its core, that's really all Atheism does, so, while you could be a Buddhist and an Atheist, they're really nothing alike.

Digression: While we like to be clear that we're not evil sinners, and point to our humanistic sides, to be Athiest does not mean anything but no god. We can have morals without god, but this is not an essential core to Athiesm. Actually, that reminds me of a minister who tried to tell me I wasn't an Athiest, because I'm a humanist, and have beliefs, so I had to point out... a-theism is to mono-theism as mono-theism is to poly-theism... no-god; one-god; many-god... there isn't any more to it than that.

It may even be appropriate to say the core of Buddhist "philosophy" is Agnostic as it pertains to a deity, in that it is open to the possibility that a deity exists, but does not insist upon it.

Being an eastern religion, it is not surprising to find many Buddhist sects intermixing Buddhism with Hinduism, another eastern religion. That does not mean these Hindu elements are a core part of Buddhism itself, but merely that these particular sects are in essence both Buddhist and Hindu.

Another interesting "religion" philosophy, also eastern, is Taoism, which also could be considered Agnostic. Taoism may or may not involve belief in spirits in a similar fashion as Buddhism may or may not involve Hinduism, which essentially leads to the conclusion that it, at its core, does not include spirits, but does not exclude them either, which allows for their inclusion by sects and individuals.

Essentially, one could be a Taoist Buddhist Atheist, or even a Taoist Buddhist Christian, or for that super eastern flavor, a Taoist Buddhist Shinto (Shinto being a belief in spirits; very similar to Native American beliefs IMO). If you get real technical, separating spirits and deities, you could even be a Taoist Buddhist Shinto Atheist. Although I think the intellectual grounding of most Atheists would disallow the inclusion of spirit belief...

Interestingly, in the vein of the OP, I've actually contemplated the Athiest Christian concept... regardless of if the man even existed, and most importantly ignoring the idea that the man-god was supposed to be the same god from the old testement, the god of vengeance and wrath... the stories tell of completely selfless and giving man who walked the earth to help people, and asked people to follow him in his ways...

 Interjection: I've yet to meet a Christian who truly walks the path of their savior. Most of them spew more garbage from the old testament than the new, clearly not realizing that either they aren't the same god, or their god underwent a complete psychological makeover and total reversal of policy...

Anyhow... to truly walk the path of Christ, would be to give everything up, and do everything to help your fellow man; certainly a noble endeavor. This is actually quite, quite, different than any other religious teaching out there. Every religion says a bunch of things in common like "be good to one another", but not too many say get out there and give.

Point here is, one could follow that path without belief in a deity. One could be a Christian Athiest. However... when push comes to shove... I'll be honest... I'm too selfish for that path... or is it that I don't think people deserve it... maybe both...

 Honestly though, if everyone truly followed Christs path (not the modern Christian path, and certainly not the Evangelical Christian path)... might be interesting to see...

Hmmm. Speaking of meditation and focus...

That's something that seperates a lot of religions from Christianity, actually...

Many religions give a focus to achieving an inner peace; often inferring that without inner peace, one cannot be truly peacefull with others...

 There is a particular character that I've encountered from many persons of many cultures; a character in which you can see an inner light shining outward; by which I mean a person who is truly happy and at peace, and they show it well...

 Buddhists, Hindu, Taoists, Shinto, Native Americans, and even Muslims... but I've never seen it in a Christian of any form.

thanks you all, this thread made my night, you > "The Path" < keep my hope real, someday all will say " I am GOD as YOU" ...... we are 100% G_O_D, .....so enough all ready , get back to science and making fun, ONLY FUN , abolish work ...... 

http://www.primitivism.com/abolition.htm

fun for all is my only religion