Survay:Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion

[KebertX]

"Why not" is not a decent reason for me to rearrange my neurons, thanks.  I'm looking for the world the way it is.  Because "why not" carries no burden of proof, it rarely satisfies my curiosity, because rather than "why not?", I ask "why?"

Like I said, it's not a question of logic for me.  It's not just "Why not" either. I sincerely like Buddhism, and I agree with it's philosophy.  And it's tenets about how the universe works
a) cannot be proven one way or the other
b) actually make sense.  It's simple, not so far fetched, and never contradicts itself, or reality
and c) inconsequential. It really doesn't matter, there's no motivation to dispute it, because it's not contradictory to anything in the real world.  It's sort of off to the side, so you can just believe in it if it makes sense to you, and it doesn't effect your perception of reality.

Like I said, I just think it's nice.  I think (but would never make a scientific claim) that I observe Karma in my day to day life.  It appears to be a natural law governing the universe, from my perspective.  And Reincarnation simply makes sense to me: Your life is basically just energy. You die, the energy is spent up, it leaves your body.  That same energy is simply recycled, and life perpetuates itself.  Energy's never created or destroyed, it's just physics.

So for some unconfirmable mysticism that makes me feel optimistic, I'm willing to let Occam's Razor take a hit on this one.  I could care less if it's real, it just seems nice.  Detachment.  That's another thing I picked up from Buddhism.  So I always ask "Why?" when I want to learn something that I can know. But when it comes to the unknown and unknowable, where it really doesn't matter if it's true and doesn't impact on the rest of reality, I'm content to pick an appealing philosophy and stick to it.  And "Why Not?" is all the justification I need.

[notself]

Many people including Buddhists think rebirth is a continuation of the self.  Yet according to many suttas and the commentaries this is not the case.  The Buddha never specifically says what will be reborn although in some suttas to laypeople and new monks he uses the pronoun "you".  The commentaries contain this poem.  Only empty (of self) phenomenon is reborn.  The phenomena could be the actions we have taken in this life which have yet to have a result.  This poem wraps up anatta (not self), kamma (action), co-dependent origination and the atheistic nature of Buddhist teachings in a nice little package.

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."

- Visuddhimagga XVI 90

A surprising number of Buddhists don't like this poem.  I guess like many theists, they want to believe they will actually be reincarnated.

I just noticed my rank on this board is "the believer who wasn't there".  How very appropriate.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Why not" is not a decent reason for me to rearrange my neurons, thanks.  I'm looking for the world the way it is.  Because "why not" carries no burden of proof, it rarely satisfies my curiosity, because rather than "why not?", I ask "why?"

Like I said, it's not a question of logic for me.  It's not just "Why not" either. I sincerely like Buddhism, and I agree with it's philosophy.  And it's tenets about how the universe works
a) cannot be proven one way or the other
b) actually make sense.  It's simple, not so far fetched, and never contradicts itself, or reality
and c) inconsequential. It really doesn't matter, there's no motivation to dispute it, because it's not contradictory to anything in the real world.  It's sort of off to the side, so you can just believe in it if it makes sense to you, and it doesn't effect your perception of reality.

Like I said, I just think it's nice.  I think (but would never make a scientific claim) that I observe Karma in my day to day life.  It appears to be a natural law governing the universe, from my perspective.  And Reincarnation simply makes sense to me: Your life is basically just energy. You die, the energy is spent up, it leaves your body.  That same energy is simply recycled, and life perpetuates itself.  Energy's never created or destroyed, it's just physics.

So for some unconfirmable mysticism that makes me feel optimistic, I'm willing to let Occam's Razor take a hit on this one.  I could care less if it's real, it just seems nice.  Detachment.  That's another thing I picked up from Buddhism.  So I always ask "Why?" when I want to learn something that I can know. But when it comes to the unknown and unknowable, where it really doesn't matter if it's true and doesn't impact on the rest of reality, I'm content to pick an appealing philosophy and stick to it.  And "Why Not?" is all the justification I need.

I don't have a problem with this, because you are not making didactic statements about how reality operates.  It's one reason I find Buddhism, if personally unsatisfying, tolerable.  Although I'd argue that your point about reincarnation is really a redefinition of the word, rather than an example of its colloquial meaning.

I simply prefer having a reason behind my beliefs, because I have no faith.

[notself]

And Reincarnation simply makes sense to me: Your life is basically just energy. You die, the energy is spent up, it leaves your body.  That same energy is simply recycled, and life perpetuates itself.  Energy's never created or destroyed, it's just physics.

I don't have a problem with this, because you are not making didactic statements about how reality operates.  It's one reason I find Buddhism, if personally unsatisfying, tolerable.  Although I'd argue that your point about reincarnation is really a redefinition of the word, rather than an example of its colloquial meaning.

I simply prefer having a reason behind my beliefs, because I have no faith.

KervertX definition is similar to the "rebirth" that Buddha described in some suttas and in the poem I posted.  Phenomena of the poem can be defined as energy as well as action.  The reincarnation of Hindus and some New Age religions is a different definition based on a concept of an eternal self or soul.  This concept of unchanging eternalism is negated in Buddhist teachings.  

The problem with Buddhist teachings is the shear volume and frequently the lack of clear indications as to the audience for the teachings.  Where there are indicators of the audience one can see how the teachings were tailored to the understanding level of that audience.  In many teachings Gotama uses the phrase "you will be reborn" and in others he talks about not self, no independent "you" exists.  In my opinion, one can see two types of teachings. The first is very close to the Vedic religions that were practiced at the time, but eliminating the need for ritual, priests and gods while empowering men and women to be their own salvation, i.e. end or reduce suffering/stress.  The second is the teachings about impermanence, not self, and co-dependant origination.  The intellectual realization of these things as they apply to oneself, is what I think the goal is really about.