It might be for some, since there are no gods to worship and has an appealing philosophy.
But to me, it is not appealing enough to cover up the fact that it still incorporates the concept of reincarnation, a concept, like so many in religions, without any evidence to back up its truthfulness.
If you want to have an intellectually honest position on religion, then atheism is currently your only choice.

when will you learn to spell atheism right?

Religion is for the gullible.

That depends on whether or not you view it as a religion or a philosophy. Which has been an argument for the ages. There are those who believe that Buddhism would be better served out of the hands of traditional Buddhists, seeking to remove the worship aspects. Those who partake in the Buddhism = philosophy and not religion argument, usually spout their own dogmatic views; stating the “fact” that Buddhism is less dogmatic than traditional religions. However, remember that Buddhism is rooted in mysticism; which flies in contrast to the atheist approach as mysticism requires a belief in an absolute, though not necessarily God, but some higher power.

Traditionally the goal of religion/worship/Buddhism was to seek transcendence; gain access to a higher power. Perhaps we all have the power within us and just choose different paths to get there.

I worship in a church, I pray, that’s my choice.
Christianity/Buddhism/Judaism/Atheism; seek and find your wisdom wherever you can. Just don’t be a zealot in the process.

@ragingloli & @switchhitter: Your divisive statements do nothing to encourage debate and conversation.

@bythebay my statement was divisive? how?

@ragingloli: You said “If you want to have an intellectually honest position on religion, then atheism is currently your only choice.”

@bythebay you find that divisive?
I think that is how it is. Religions, all of them, make positive claims without any bit of supporting evidence. Believing in things that have no evidence means that there have to be other reasons that make one believe. Maybe one has been raised that way. Maybe one wishes it to be true. Maybe it is fear of punishment. Maybe it is faulty logic. In either case, one has not arrived at one’s beliefs by evidence and reason and most likely omitted alternative scenarios (what makes one religion more probable than any other religion?), and thus that is what i think holding these beliefs to be true is intellectually dishonest.

@Crusader Study it. that’s the only way you’ll really know whether it’s for you or not.
You might have recieved satisfying responses from our fellow users, but a personal opinion, impresion, interpretation or a schematic explanation or description of Buddhism wil not teach you what you could learn from it on your own.
Read about it, on accurate sources, though.
whether atheist or not, or simply secularist you’ll find it quite pleasant. I do not think you’ll substitue it with atheism, but you might gain a considerable extra point in your life with it’s logic and philosophy.

@ragingloli: And I still find your answers to be condescending, intentionally inflammatory, and without merit; as usual. I think that is how it is. I make this claim with great supporting evidence and reason, btw.

I feel sorry and embarrased for Religious freaks.
You have nothing to go on but a fictional book,with no evidence of a god you still blindly give your time and money to the biggest and best manmade con ever!

I am “The Lord“and these are my representatives.
This is Father O’Hara,he is Gay but thats ok.
This is Reverend Jones,also Gay.
This right here is Father Smith,he is a paedo.
This is Sister Margaret,she forces sex on her charges at the Girls boarding school.
This is Parish Priest Dr J Mathews,also a paedo and violent thug.
All in the name of the lord.
Whatever next?Maybe a German torturer.
Looks great this religion….

My answer was not in the least condescending, and I don’t find it inflammatory one bit.
i think you only think that way because my answer happens to contradict your views
As for the “no merit” comment.: OP asked if Buddhism would be a viable alternative to atheism.
I responded with why for some it is, and why for me and many others, it is not.
If you think that answering the question as the OP intended is without merit, then that is your problem.

@switchhitter You do our cause a great disservice. Please, instead of making broad statements like you have, show through logic and reason why atheism is a good option for those who do not need religion.

As an atheist, Buddhism is very interesting. However, as it has been pointed out above, Buddhism still has elements that are unfalsifiable and mystic. My atheism is based on logic and evidence. Reincarnation in particular is not logical in my mind, and mysticism has no basis. However it seems to work for the followers, and unlike many other religions Buddhism seems to largely promote peace and wellbeing. Although I could never accept it for myself, I have respect for it.

Fanaticism: excessive intolerance of opposing views
Xenophobia :the fear of people who are different from one’s self.
Intolerance:lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

@switchhitter There are warped, twisted people to be found in every sector of society. The majority of child abuse happens within a family unit. Would you have us disband families?

@switchhitter: Your intellectual prowess is stunning. Your self expression nothing short of amazing. Brilliant answer~

I wouldn’t describe Buddhism as an “alternative” to atheism. Atheism and Buddhism are quite compatible. The concept of a personal god just doesn’t enter into Buddhism, so non-belief isn’t an obstacle to Buddhist practice.

Buddhism doesn’t rely on a body of beliefs. The only “belief” that’s essential to Buddhist practice is that it is possible to directly experience the nature of reality. If you don’t believe this, then there really is no point in practicing Buddhism. If you can accept this possibility, then Buddhism offers a set of practices that open the door to that experience.

In fact, in the end, it’s necessary to drop all beliefs of any kind in order for that door to be opened. This includes beliefs held by many secularists. A strictly materialist view would be as much of an obstacle as would belief in a personal God. What’s required is complete openness, without attachment to any idea about the way things are. Secularists are not immune to attachment to ideas.

A staunch secularist would likely be put off by many of the more devotional aspects of traditional Buddhist practice. There’s a lot of ritual, a lot of liturgy, things that have no good rational explanation. Buddhism values questioning greatly, but “what”, “when”, “who” and “where” are far more important than “why”. “Why” tends to be the darling of secularists.

@Harp: lurve to you.

I’m still not sure why an atheist would feel a need for an “alternative.” If they’re happy as atheists, it’s quite possible that they don’t feel “less” for not having a religion, nor the need to cop one from some other belief system.

Well, Buddhism doesn’t have to be a religion so much as a way of life and a philosophy to be studied. Buddha isn’t a god, and traditionally isn’t “worshipped.” So, you can be an atheist and a Buddhist philosopher at the same time. They’re mutually exclusive and not contradictory.

@FireMadeFlesh About reincarnation. These are some thoughts I have had about the matter.

I see it in a philosophical aspect as well. If seen as soul circulation I agree. I find no merit in that, since the concept of a soul has little credibility with me.

But I see hidden variants of reincarnation thinking in our culture. Dalai Lamas rebirths are politically interesting in a similar manner as the classic words in our culture, “The King is dead, long live the King!” There is an aspect of reincarnation in the psychological.

Jesus is the roman name. His real name would be Yehousha, which is the same name as another variation of that name, Joshua. The promise of a vengeful messiah is the reincarnation of Joshua, the creator of The Holy Land. A Joshua gives a messiah similar quality transfer as a Kennedy gets in politics. Here is the aspect of reincarnation again.

why do the secularists need an alternative? there’s no reason to find ‘the next best thing’ as if they’re somehow missing out on something

Buddha is not a god, but a teacher.

I’ve been reading up on Zen Buddhism. Zen teaches the value of doing nothing and thinking nothing. I thought, “Whoa! Cool. I was fired from my previous job for being a Zen Master!”

@AstroChuck ahhaha

@AstroChuck lol

Reincarnation (or rebirth) is completely beside the point of Buddhist practice. The whole idea could be totally disposed of and there would be zero impact on the practice. It mustn’t be thought of as a doctrine in the same way that resurrection is a doctrine of Christianity. Take away resurrection and you have fundamentally changed Christianity. Take away rebirth from most forms of Buddhism and you’ve changed nothing.

I recently had an experience at a temple, in a stressed and confused and physically ill condition, and, after an hour or more a just sitting at the temple gate, and listening to the periodic hitting of a block and a soft gong, felt quite removed from my discomfort, and managed to sleep quite soundly after, (also many cats call the place home, wild though they are they are veyr healthy.)

Strangely, I recently encountered a fellow who gave me direction, going far out of his way in the process, and became ready friends. He later confided his wife was injured in the hospital, I said I would pray for her, and, when I mentioned the temple, he indicated he had spent three days there at one point. Coincidence? I have also been the beneficiary of considerable assistance and personal unconditional regard from Christian-minded folks.(though often intense and at times unclear and argumentative-nevertheless generous and forgiving…) Perhaps orientation to these beliefs-in an altruistic way- has an effect on our future associations?

I’m with @laureth on this: I don’t see why anyone would think agnostics or atheists need or are looking for alternative belief systems.

@hungryhungryhortence,
Perhaps my previous post/testemonial is one reason why someone may consider such alternative belief systems…Anyone else experienced such feelings and serendipity?

Just what is the point of this question?
It’s not like it’s interesting.

Anyone else care to comment on the thread topic?

Everybody has the right to have imaginary friends… ask Lisa Simpson

This direct experience of reality that’s at the core of Buddhist practice isn’t the exclusive property of Buddhists, by any means. It’s available to everyone, and can happen completely outside the context of any religious practice whatsoever. The premise is simple: let drop your assumptions, whatever you think you know about the way things are, and the true nature of things becomes apparent. All Buddhism is is a way of systematically letting go of our preconceptions, even the ones we’re not aware of having, so we can see things as they truly are.

That’s why Buddhism doesn’t go in for doctrine and belief. These just become more ideas that the practitioner has to let go of. The practice consists of just calmly doing, listening, seeing…all without letting ideas get in the way. @Crusader, this is what the block and the bell were there for, and why they had this effect on you. In those moments when ideas fall away and we surrender to pure experience, like your listening, the door to seeing past our pain-producing delusions cracks open.

To be honest, I think many atheists are attracted to Buddhism because they simply don’t like to call themselves atheists; they are uncomfortable with atheism for whatever reason. This is also true for many people who identify as ‘agnostics.’ Buddhists are atheists. Agnostics are atheists. But the word “atheism” carries negative connotations, and many atheists don’t actually understand that they are in fact atheists. “Atheism” is a very misunderstood word.

The only religion worth my time is the one I invented. Life is about choices, your results may vary.

I do not claim to be as knowledgeable of Buddhism as @Harp is, but I know that Buddhists believe that all suffering comes from desire, which I believe he would say comes from our attachments to things. If we can just live in the moment and appreciate the wonder and beauty around us then we could stop beating ourselves up regarding what we don’t have or have not accomplished.

There is nothing about living this way that violates any secular principles. All the wealth of industrialized nations does not seem to make people any happier, so a simpler and more direct way of living has great appeal to many of us.

@oratio Interesting points. I was referring to traditional reincarnation, as in karma dictates whether you return as a horse or a duck. Inheritance of a title is important in one’s psyche, but I think it is a stretch to call it reincarnation.

@FireMadeFlesh Yes, I agree. It’s just an aspect of it that I find interesting that I thought I’d share.

I don’t think it’s a coincident that Jesus name as the savior of the jews was the same as the previous savior. They were both anointed and messiahs.

There is a transfer of quality and characteristics in naming a person, and the transfer of title from one to the next, like with the Damai Lama.

I see this transfer in a context of reincarnating these qualities and characteristics, but not in the setting of the classical sense.

To consider the mind as discontinuous at some point, yet to be determined, seems incomprehensible, particularly as it has no material properties other than a strong association with the body, so how could it be eradicated? Does the mind just come into being, from nowhere, and disappear back from whence it came? Reincarnation is a more comfortable concept to live with, however it’s cruder, more populist understanding is risible and almost as dopey as populist Christian eschatological concepts of Heaven and Hell.

@mammal How is the non-eternal nature of the mind incomprehensible? A person’s being, and their consciousness is to our knowledge solely composed of electrochemical interactions of neurons. How then, is it hard to believe that the death of the person results in the death of the mind? Does it not follow that decomposition is the cessation of existence?

@FireMadeFlesh I think the start of the problem is that many don’t consider the mind to be created by collected experiences but as an entity by itself. Where that entity would come from is quite unexplained other than by creation by the divine. I think also that the cessation of existence by many seems like unjustifiable waste, which is by human standards quite horrendous, and lacks a purpose. But seeing the universe in the big picture tells us that waste and purpose are only human values, and only exists for us.

@oratio Maybe so. I have always put it down to a lack of understanding of neurology. It is difficult for the lay person to accept that we can measure their most profound emotions and reduce it down to a value describing quantities of neurotransmitters. I understand that it is hard. However it is an accepted fact in science, and having difficulty accepting something doesn’t make it any less true. It is also potentially comforting to think that loved ones are “in a better place” rather than them being information content lost to oblivion. As with some religious ideas, fear of death and lack of ability to recognise it for what it is hold some evolutionary advantages – but that in itself does not make it true either. It all depends on whether you want a comforting idea or truth.

@FireMadeFlesh Yes. A problem though is trying to prove that there is no god, which we can’t, and the whole thing becomes circular.
Trying to prove or disprove the divine by science leads to people believing in ideas like 21 grams and Irreducible complexity.

@oratio Ahh yes, but is it not worth rejecting simply because it is an unfalsifiable theory?

@FireMadeFlesh In my own personal opinion, yes. The unfalsifiability of it all makes it an individual choice unfortunately.

But we strayed quite a bit from the actual subject. :p

Personally Buddhism and the Tao work best for me.

I have been a practitioner for about 6 years now, in varying intensities.

I just returned from Taiwan and the temples were magical.

Have a huge temple gong in my living room….start the day bangin’ the gong! lol

These philosophies, practices are advantagious to anyone, sans the ideology of hardcore ‘religion.’

One can practice mindful living, compassionate caring, harmlessness, meditation and still ‘be’ involved in other ‘religions’ if they so choose.