I'm curious though (and PLEASE don't take offense - I genuinely wonder) if the Buddhist qualifier is there simply to soften the stigma usually associated with atheism. Throwing a "Buddhist" in there with "atheist" would imply (to a religious person) that you're a bit more "open minded" than the normal anti-religion atheist. Or, as Buddhists, do you guys genuinely practice the rituals, mantras, hand gestures, and what not?
I'm Norwegian, atheist is the default here. So no, it's not to soften any stigma, because there are no stigma attached to atheism here.
I don't practice any rituals, mantras or hand gestures, as my form of Buddhism doesn't have a lot of that - especially not for laymen. I identify myself as orthodox Theravada, the form of Buddhism closest to the teachings of the original Buddha, and he didn't really teach a lot of supernatural stuff, if any at all. There are a
ton of different varieties of Buddhism, and they are all
very different, from the atheistic Zen and Theravada, to the pantheistic Tibetan Buddhism and the almost monotheistic Pure Land.
At it's core, Buddhism is nothing but philosophy, and a way to look at things. It was never meant to be a religion. That's why, when it spread, it got mixed in with local beliefs and you have all the great varieties. But again, at it's core, it's a philosophy and way of life that is in no way incompatible with atheism and scepticism.
I understand atheists cherry picking from religions to find a nice way to live. It's quite common. The Golden Rule, and all that.... but I'm wondering if you guys actually identify with the Buddhist culture. Do you honor the Buddha and his incarnations? Please understand I'm not accusing anything, I'm asking. The reason I ask is because of perspectives like this:
One thing about Buddhism, is that it
promotes cherry picking, at least the oldest traditions. You take what works for you, and you discard the rest. I'm sure there are a lot of Buddhists who are quite dogmatic, even within Theravada and Zen, but at its core, and according to the oldest teachings, it's not.
For example, I once talked to a Theravada monk who insisted that the Kalama Sutta (quoted earlier in this thread) does
not apply to the teachings of the Buddha. But the Buddha himself said no such thing, and conventional interpretation is that it applies equally to Buddhism as to everything else.
Without having studied Buddhism extensively, I can understand this point of view. Meditation is totally possible without Buddhism. In fact, trying to meditate in the fashion of Buddhists would probably mess mine up.
But if all it is are a few clever sayings and a different way to meditate, is that really worthy of the title of Buddhist? I mean, I believe in loving thy neighbor, and thou shalt not kill, but I don't identify myself as a Christian. Again, I ain't hating, I'm just stating.
Of course it's possible to meditate without Buddhism. It's also possible to be a Buddhist and
not meditate. I don't meditate much, really.
The core of Buddhism isn't meditation, or reincarnation, or nirvana, or whatever non-Buddhists think of when they think of Buddhism. It's the Four Noble Truths. That's the core, and that's the main teaching of the Buddha.
