Ok then so there isn't a personal God (or gods) of any description but do the non-theistic religions have any valdity iyo?

[Helm]

The God of Spinoza or Einstein is fine with me but it won't listen to or answer any prayers so that isn't a personal God but some kind of pantheism or deism. But how about something like Buddhism? I don't see anything particularly outrageous or potentially harmful about that as a belief, though there is still the traditional problem of the evidence or the total lack of it.

[Biggreenfellow]

Buddhism isn't a religion, really. It's more of a way of life. I think there has even been research into the benefits of meditation and stuff. If you look at the Shaolin monks, you can see what you can achieve if you train and focus correctly.

[CamilleBonparte]

Buddhism isn't a religion, really. It's more of a way of life.

A way of life with a supernatural objective. It's a religion, no matter how some atheists may try to depict it.

[Helm]

It's definitely a religion just one that doesn't involve a personal God, Scientology is another example.

[Biggreenfellow]

It's definitely a religion just one that doesn't involve a personal God, Scientology is another example.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm

First link I could find. To quote the first few paragraphs and the last:

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."
Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.

A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.
(.....)
If, by religion, is meant "a teaching which takes a view of life that is more than superficial, a teaching which looks into life and not merely at it, a teaching which furnishes men with a guide to conduct that is in accord with this its in-look, a teaching which enables those who give it heed to face life with fortitude and death with serenity,"[6] or a system to get rid of the ills of life, then it is certainly a religion of religions.

I personally would not call it a religion.

But, to get back to the question you posed, I think a lot of people would benefit from a little Buddhism in their lives. It's just easier said then done. I personally would never believe in the Christian, Muslim or Jewish God, but Buddhism, I can dig.

[Helm]

To me that looks like some kind of religious thing.



And this looks like temple to me.



And that is an idol.

[Biggreenfellow]

To me that looks like some kind of religious thing.



And this looks like temple to me.



And that is an idol.

The link I provided explained it better then I, a layman, can. Now, we can argue over semantics, or you could respond to my on topic comment in my last post

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

It strikes me as a vastly outdated philosophical system. The ultimate goal isto achieve nirvana, pull out from the cycle of existance, because the first noble truth of Buddha is that life irrevocably leads to suffering. This worldview obviously arose as the product of the difficult life of the masses plauged by hardships, diseases and exploitation in 5th century BC India. The type of person it produces, if practiced properly, is a pacificist, unproductive, un-contributing, socially detached, devoid of interest in wordly affairs man. Just as worthless as the Christian monks and hermits. Apart from advocating a moral code within the confines of an infinite circle of rebirths, it does not give any cosmological answers either. Therefore, I see absolutely no point in espousing a system of beliefs, whose orginal goals an age with unprecedentedly high material and scientific standards does not share, whose practise not only villifies any from of pleasure but also turns one into a social burden, and which on top of it all does not even attempt to answer any questions about creation.

Edit:
And yes, Buddhism is not any more a religion than the philosophical school of Cynicism in the classical and hellenistic world. The Cynics were not averse to erecting statues of their emblematic figures as signs of respect and gratitude either.

[Helm]

Like I said it's a non-theistic religion and there are plenty of those around, Scientology like I said, there's Taoism, Confucianism as well and native tribal religion which only venerate spirits of ancestors and animals. The worship of a supreme creator God is in the great scheme of things a fairly recent invention.

It strikes me as a vastly outdated philosophical system. The ultimate goal isto achieve nirvana, pull out from the cycle of existance, because the first noble truth of Buddha is that life irrevocably leads to suffering. This worldview obviously arose as the product of the difficult life of the masses plauged by hardships, diseases and exploitation in 5th century BC India. The type of person it produces, if practiced properly, is a pacificist, unproductive, un-contributing, socially detached, devoid of interest in wordly affairs man. Just as worthless as the Christian monks and hermits. Apart from advocating a moral code within the confines of an infinite circle of rebirths, it does not give any cosmological answers either. Therefore, I see absolutely no point in espousing a system of beliefs, whose orginal goals an age with unprecedentedly high material and scientific standards does not share, whose practise not only villifies any from of pleasure but also turns one into a social burden, and which on top of it all does not even attempt to answer any questions about creation.

I think the idea is that you will have all he cosmological answers once you have attained Nirvana, in order to do that you have to annihilate your "self" and your ego as that keeps you locked in the rebirth cycle where you will suffer. Even if this life wasn't all that bad your next life could be a complete nightmare, not everyone is fortunate enough to be born in the developed world for instance. You could also come back as animal or a "hungry ghost" whatever that's supposed to be, it's not meant to be good whatever it is. I'm still not quite sure how they actually know all this tbh but there will have to be some faith this is the real deal and not an invention.