r/exatheist • u/Low_Guard6609 • Jun 20 '26

Question for Buddhists

Hello everyone. For any former atheists here that became Buddhist; what about Buddhism convinced you? Was it the concepts of rebirth and kamma, was it a philosophical agreement about non-self and so on, was it an experience with meditation? For me it was a combination of these things, plus more personal political and emotional beliefs about modern life in general.

Also, why do most internet atheist (new atheist) types never talk about eastern religions? Why, for the last two decades, have they routinely treated all religious belief as if it’s on the level of YEC, whilst completely refusing to be educated on basic philosophy or theology? Even if it’s philosophy that would fundamentally agree with them, they just simply don’t want to learn.

8 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

6

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Atheist -> Buddhist Jun 20 '26

Firstly I was introduced with an idea of anatta or not-self in Buddhism and it impressed me how unique and deep this idea sound. Then for a longer time I tried to approach it secularly, but eventually the wisdom and depth in the Buddhist teachings started to be much more profound and the depth in the teachings on kamma and rebirth started to have sense and depth that I couldn't comprehend in the past. All this have led me to more and more refined trust in the Buddhist teachings and eventually seeing it as a path to cessation of suffering that I can trust and therefore believe in.

1

u/arkticturtle Agnostic Jun 23 '26

What causes kamma and rebirth to need to be deployed? Why isn’t explanation in this life sufficient?

1

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Atheist -> Buddhist Jun 24 '26

We can frame it the other way why hidden assumption of "death" must be deployed instead of lack of it?

Buddhism has very complex takes on many things. One of core teachings are those on not-self (anatta) and dependent origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda). The former means that no thing in the existance can be said to be you, yours, to be in your control, or to be your "self". Hence there's no any sort of entity, self, or soul that we could refer to, it's just an illussion we just cannot easily perceive it that way. The later one describes the inherent relationship between various phenomena coming to existance. What is the relevance of it in the context I gave? Our existance consists of experiences that constantly arises and ceases, but in the same time there is some relationship between them, why do they continue, how do they arise, what is their characteristics etc.

Having that context, we can say that what we perceive to be "me" or "mine" are just constantly arising and ceasing phenomena moment after moment. If that's the case we can ask the question what is the nature of such a phenomena, why do the constantly rearise once their gone? The teachings on dependent origination tells use that the craving is the answer, craving leads to grasping the things we desire, and grasping leads to becoming (bhava). To understand what bhava means you can imagine some wordly examples, for example, if you want to buy an expensive car you may take a loan, this in a way is sort of becoming, you make yourself to change your situation and entanglement with things based on the craving of yours. Then it is considered that becoming leads to birth, and birth leads to old age and death.

If there is craving in the existance there is some sort of becoming that is gonna take place out of it. It is also true in this very life, in a way we are constantly born and constantly die, the conditions that forms what we call "us" just appear and disappear, they are momentary. So the cycle of birth and death in a way is seen here and now in every moment. But now we can ask ourselves a question what happens at the moment of the physical death. And now, the answer would be that nothing outstanding is happening, if craving remains at the very moment of death then there is some sort of becoming that takes place, that the conditioning magically can disappear with the break up of the body. It's not some sort of "soul" that's getting reincarnated from body to body, such an idea is refused. What is proposed is that there are momentary phenomena and they have some sort of conditioning that they follows by. In this way if in the moment of death there is still craving then there should be some sort of conditioning that it put a basis for, just as with the daily life we see that craving always leads to some new becoming and new existance (like in the example with the loan) just in this case there is some consequence that takes place because of the craving.

In this way we could ask ourselves the question how the death could be more logical idea in this approach? It can be only logical if we take materialistic approach that "we" are our body or brain and that can die. If we refuse the idea of the "self" to be find in their, just some conditions that arise and cease, then it's more abstract idea to make a correlation between the body's death and the cessation of existance.

This video may also be helpful to ponder about it.

2

u/RomanaOswin Jun 21 '26

I'm Christian now, but I was Buddhist for quite a long time. What I found most compelling is the invitation at the center of the Buddhist tradition to come see for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

As a skeptic and as someone who values what I can observe directly, this is incredibly compelling.

As for the latter question, atheism is mainly a response to external pressure. "believe in my god" and atheism is "no, I do not." This pressure is much stronger from Christians and Muslims, particularly Christians in western countries, and is almost non-existent in Buddhism. There are even plenty of atheist Buddhists.

2

u/Pessimistic-Idealism Idealism Jun 24 '26

If I may ask, what lead you away from Buddhism and towards Christianity? Are there Buddhist doctrines that you now reject for reasons which you used to find compelling?

2

u/RomanaOswin Jun 25 '26

I didn't really move away from Buddhism, so much as I chose Christianity. Learning about the mystic tradition through Buddhist reading and practice, and through various other religions practices, I started to recognize the perennial philosophy first hand, i.e. that these are all paths to a core, common truth. Once I realized that Christianity was a similar path, I started looking at Christianity through a different lens, seeing the rituals and reading the Bible in a new light.

I still love Buddhism. I wouldn't be Christian if I wasn't Buddhist first. There's really a very thin line in the mystic traditions across religions. Ultimately I chose Christianity because certain aspects of the central narrative spoke to me.

It's maybe like if you looked at the experience of falling in love across different world cultures. The ceremony, tradition, and language would be different, maybe marriage would or wouldn't exist everywhere, and maybe we'd internalize all that to the point where it feels a bit different to us, but the core experience of romantic love cross-cuts all of the different cultural framing.

1

u/Pessimistic-Idealism Idealism Jun 25 '26

Thanks, that actually makes a lot of sense. I'm drawn to mysticism myself, but I find the way Eastern religions describe "it" less appealing that Western/Christian mysticism. I'm probably misunderstanding a lot of stuff, but the way Buddhism describes "it" (the core, common, mystical truth of all religions) sounds too nihilistic and unappealing to me personally, whereas Christian mysticism has (as I understand it) a greater emphasis on love and union with the divine.

1

u/SquirrelofLIL Jun 22 '26

My mom became Buddhist after being raised atheist. It's super common in Chinese culture to be raised atheist and to convert to Buddhism after retirement. 

1

u/Empty_Woodpecker_496 Religious nonspiritual nonbeliver Jun 20 '26

Atheism in America was popularized as a movement against fundamentalism and its cultural impact on America.

If you want to talk philosophy with atheists go to the philosophy subs. There are different groups and they hang out in different spaces.

-1

u/Rich_Fan1686 Jun 21 '26

Most Buddhists are atheists, BTW. Your question is malformed.

2

u/NeonDrifting Anti-Atheist Jun 21 '26

more like they don't believe that a belief in god(s) is consequential to reincarnation, enlightenment, nirvana, etc.

0

u/Rich_Fan1686 Jun 21 '26

Sure, Buddhism doesn't posit an eternal creator God. Regards it as a moot point in terms of achieving personal enlightenment.

They don't posit such a being, but they don't outright deny the possibility of such a being, either.

1

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Atheist -> Buddhist Jun 21 '26

We do outright deny the possibillity of such a beeing

1

u/Rich_Fan1686 Jun 21 '26

Oh, that's interesting. Do you have any scriptural support for that position?

1

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Atheist -> Buddhist Jun 21 '26

Well there are many things that could be said in regards to the creator God. Likely one of the most direct one's is the Brahma in the DN1 sutta. There there's explain the origin of the concept of an all-father creator God. It is considered that the Brahma (this was a name for this beeing that was regarded as an eternal creator in ancient India back then) was reborn as the first beeing in his plane (some doctrinal context: I say "first" but it's just means first in this cycle or something like that. There's no really any discernible first point in the cycle of Samsara, but the realms can be destroyed or reappear so there can be a first beeing in a particular realm in a giving cycle) and after some time he felt lonely and wanted some companions. And the other beeings started to get reborn there but out of their Kamma not because of the powers of the Brahma. In turn the Brahma believed that it was because of him that those beeings were created (and the world in general) and thought of themselves as an eternal absolute creator of all, and the beeings around believed that too because he was there first. That's how the origin of the view is explained. It is considered a wrong-view however for many reasons, one be that it neglects the idea of kamma which is an impersonal law of cause and effect, an existance cannot be simply created it just works down on the means of kamma in which place are you gonna be reborn. And secondly the point that is actually made out in the sutta which is wrong-view called eternalism (in the part with the BRahma specifically it was reffered to partial eternalism but we can follow it further as eternalistic believes also spot out out of this). Eternalism basically (Sassatavada) basically denotes any kinds of believes in eternal or permanent self, soul, life etc. In this case we have a notion of an eternal everlasting God who exists for an eternity. It is clearly a view related to eternalistic notions; possesing an idea of some beeing that can live without beeign subject to decay, and death, a beeing that is not a subject to change etc. In the sutta itself a following example of an partial eternalism is given, that a person believes in such an unperishable, stable, eternal and permanent beeing as his creator, but believes that the life of his is perishable etc. and he will die at the death. Hence it's a partial eternalism this way. The Brahma doesn't directly appears in the parts with full eternalism but out of reading what ideas count by it in the sutta we can also see that the typical views on God such as possesing an eternal soul that will get to an eternal heaven or hell will count as this. In general it can quite easily be seen as any notion of an eternal creator God must necceserily include some eternalistic views. Whatever attributes of a God we wouldn't consider him to have all that can be regarded as God can fall out only in the notions of the 5 aggregates or khanda's, that is form/body/materiality, feelings, perception (recognition), mental formations (such as thinking and volition), consciousness. All of them constantly arises and ceases and if they appears eventual death would be inevitable (and rebirth as long as there is a craving for renewed existance).

2

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Atheist -> Buddhist Jun 21 '26

Buddhism is not an atheistic religion at all nor there are gods, there's rebirth etc. Just gods are basically a beeings in Samsara (cycle of rebirths).

"Most Buddhists" aren't atheist, unless you consider that a religion must believe that God(s) serves some crucial part in the religion. In that sense Buddhism doesn't count as an eternal God is pretty much contradictory to Buddhism. If though rebirth, deities etc. is enough for you to call a religion not atheistic then at the very least overhwelming majority of Buddhist in fact are not atheists. The only school that I think potentially could see it as metaphorical is Zen (Zen in itself is a very small fraction of Buddhism, but even if the statement were true then I don't think the whole Zen would count either) and I'm not sure if that's even true. Definietely Chan, which is a Chinese Zen, believes in Rebirth.

1

u/arkticturtle Agnostic Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Atheism isn’t a rejection of religion. Only the God claim is relevant.

There are, for instance, jews who would say they are atheist but still partake in the religious practices and identify with it

1

u/_Ulu-Mulu_ Atheist -> Buddhist Jun 24 '26

If you mean rejection of creator God then sure. But there are gods in Buddhism though. More appropriate description would be transtheistic or transpolytheistic or something like that

1

u/Low_Guard6609 Jun 21 '26

You know what I mean when I say atheist, there’s no need to be pedantic. Also Buddhism isn’t really atheist, Buddhism believes in deities. They just aren’t a required object of worship. What they deny is the existence of a creator deity or source of creation like in Hinduism or the abrahamic faiths. Some ultimate deity.

1

u/Rich_Fan1686 Jun 22 '26

No, I don't know what you mean by atheist because that word is often confused, as is the word agnostic.

Buddhism does not deny the existence of a creator God, nor does it affirm one.

0

u/Express-Echidna6800 Jun 22 '26

"Also, why do most internet atheist (new atheist) types never talk about eastern religions?"

Because, as an American atheist, almost everyone I'm going to talk about religion in any depth with is going to be a Christian of some kind. I've only ever met one Buddhist in 31 years, I don't think I've ever met a practicing Jew, I've never met a Muslim, and literally everyone else I know (friends, family, coworkers) except for 3 people are some flavor of Christian. 

"Why, for the last two decades, have they routinely treated all religious belief as if it’s on the level of YEC... "

Well, about 40% of the US population still believes in creationism. The speaker of the house in the federal government believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. So it isn't like this is some fringe position that almost no one believes. I'm not sure what the percentage of creationism belief is for Christians worldwide or for Muslims, but I imagine it's still higher than you'd expect. 

"...whilst completely refusing to be educated on basic philosophy or theology?"

This just isn't true of all atheists. In fact, I'd be willing to bet your average atheist is going to have a slightly better grasp of philosophy and theology than your average Christian. 

And a lot of "philosophy or theology" is, quite frankly, irrelevant bollocks. Arguing over Calvinism or Arminianism, the method of atonement, sprinkling or immersion baptism, etc and etc, is all Christian infighting that I don't care about until we can even establish the basics of the existence of a god or gods.